Popper, Confirmation, and Evidence (split from "Is religion being picked on?")

[Reg Prescott]

Common ground at last. Lemme uncork the champagne.

[Phi for All]

I would say that there is nothing wrong with this, nor is there any real alternative.

 

I think the objection is an emotional one, based on the seeming injustice of letting scientists decide what constitutes the evidence they base their conclusions on. Or it could be a healthy misunderstanding of what's meant by "the scientific community" and how standards of evidence are treated among so many.

[Reg Prescott]

Ajb, in response to my claiming that "Both theories [evolution and God] are compatible with the evidence..." you said this:

 

In relation to evolution and creationism, the scientific community disagrees with you. There is no evidence that is of a scientific standard that supports creationism and intelligent design (as commonly understood). There is no way you can say that the evidence is consistent for both sets of ideas.

 

I fail to see why you might think the God theory (or hypothesis or fairy tale or soap opera or whatever you want to call it) is not compatible, which is the term I used, or not consistent, the term you used, with the evidence. Now, these terms might need defining, of course, but no matter how they're defined, I don't see a problem. Are you suggesting that if the God thing is true -- the old codger really is up there -- it cannot account for the evidence?

 

Surely the God theory is compatible/consistent with any evidence, which is very likely one reason why it's fallen from grace -- it's unfalsifiable, it rules out nothing, and thus is deemed by many (Dawkins excluded) to be unscientific. But being unscientific does not imply it cannot be true, nor that it is incompatible with the evidence. It was certainly deemed compatible with the evidence until Darwin threw a spanner in the works. I would suggest that whatever drove scientists to switch allegiance from Deity to Darwin was not incompatibility.

 

And while we're on the subject, ajb, you didn't answer this (post 68):

 

Second point to consider for now is this: it's often the case that exactly the same observations are taken as evidence for two or more rival hypotheses/theories (hereafter just theories). Evolution vs Design offers a prime example. We all know the standard stockpile of putative evidence -- the eye, the wing, and so forth -- taken by one group as evidence for the exquisite adaptation brought about by natural selection, and by the other as evidence for the exquisite workmanship of the designer. Given that the aforementioned observations (eye, wing, etc) are admissible as evidence for evolutionary theory, they presumably meet the required standards for scientific evidence (including your criterion of credibility!), and thus must also be admissible as evidence for the Designer theory; after all they are the very same observations. Is it not so? In this case how can it be maintained, on pain of double standard, that there is scientific evidence for one theory but no scientific evidence the other?

 

If the eye, wing, et al can be legitimately adduced as evidence for evolutionary theory, why not for for the God-Did-It theory?. That Darwin himself regarded intelligent design as a rival scientific theory is attested to by his many references to "the theory of independent creation" in the Origin of Species. He clearly didn't consider the God thing to be unscientific or incompatible with the evidence; rather he felt he was offering a better theory. I said earlier that I believe it was explanatory goodness that turned the tables; the two rival theories may both be compatible with the evidence, but natural selection explains the evidence better.

 

I might also add here - at risk of being publicly lynched -- that I harbor certain misgivings myself, speaking as a mere interested layman, over the seeming boundless capacity of evolutionary theory to accommodate any evidence. Mitigating circumstances (make it 12 lashes rather than 24) may come in the form of Stephen Jay Gould who is well known for voicing similar concerns. It seems to me that evolutionary theory -- like the God theory -- also comes precariously close to ruling out nothing, Dawkins and his dubious pre-Cambrian rabbit notwithstanding, which I would further suggest is something of a joke in itself; the very antithesis of what good science is meant to be (I'll explain if you like).

 

Anyway, gentlemen, whether I'm right or wrong, I do find it worrying that it appears anyone with the temerity to express such misgivings is immediately viewed with byzantine suspicion, labelled "anti-science", and deemed insurgent, of questionable mental stability, and probably stoopid to boot!

Edited November 6, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[ajb]

I fail to see why you might think the God theory (or hypothesis or fairy tale or soap opera or whatever you want to call it) is not compatible, which is the term I used, or not consistent, the term you used, with the evidence.

There is no evidence that suggests that God exists. While it is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, without some clear signals that a God exists why should we take the suggestion seriously? The whole idea is a human construction that bares no resemblance to nature.

 

Surely the God theory is compatible/consistent with any evidence...

We have to wrestle with the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' issue.

 

 

Second point to consider for now is this: it's often the case that exactly the same observations are taken as evidence for two or more rival hypotheses/theories (hereafter just theories). Evolution vs Design offers a prime example. We all know the standard stockpile of putative evidence -- the eye, the wing, and so forth -- taken by one group as evidence for the exquisite adaptation brought about by natural selection, and by the other as evidence for the exquisite workmanship of the designer. Given that the aforementioned observations (eye, wing, etc) are admissible as evidence for evolutionary theory, they presumably meet the required standards for scientific evidence (including your criterion of credibility!), and thus must also be admissible as evidence for the Designer theory; after all they are the very same observations. Is it not so? In this case how can it be maintained, on pain of double standard, that there is scientific evidence for one theory but no scientific evidence the other?

The evidence is not consistent with the notion of a 'perfect design'. From an engineering perspective we see many designs of animals that are from from being the most efficient or effective. You also couple this with DNA evidence, observations of evolution and so on you have to disregard the idea of intelligent design. Or, as some do, you have to make a statement like 'evolution is how God done it'. Then you are back looking for evidence of the supernatural.

[Reg Prescott]

Clearly, I'm not in a very strong debating position here. We concluded earlier, I believe, that if scientists say it's evidence, then it's evidence. And if they say it's not evidence, it's not evidence. And that's that.

 

You're a scientist; I'm not.

 

Hmm, not much more I can say then.

 

Sucks to be me,

Edited November 6, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[ajb]

But if you follow the scientific method, which is of course deeply tied to out notion of evidence, then for all intent purposes you can be a scientist.

[Reg Prescott]

But if you follow the scientific method, which is of course deeply tied to out notion of evidence, then for all intent purposes you can be a scientist.

 

I don't believe there is such a thing, friend. But that's a debate for another day....

 

...and perhaps another 12 lashes

Edited November 6, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[ajb]

I don't believe there is such a thing, friend.

True, but the general philosophy is clear and that is what one should strive to follow as a general guiding principle.

[Strange]

Clearly, I'm not in a very strong debating position here. We concluded earlier, I believe, that if scientists say it's evidence, then it's evidence. And if they say it's not evidence, it's not evidence. And that's that.

 

I don't think it is as simple as that. Science tries to use objective (in some sense) and quantifiable evidence. So, for example, it makes measurements and compares them with the model. That is part of what makes evidence "scientific" or not. Anyone can look at the data and say "yes it falls within the range predicted by the model" (or, no it doesn't).

 

For example, I don't know what people might consider evidence for God. But I have heard vague things like "the world is beautiful" or "love". These are unquantifiable and any such statement cannot be confirmed/replicated by others in any objective/quantifiable way. Even if you were to do surveys and get some measure of how many people share that feeling, there is still no way of relating it to the "god hypothesis" (as compared to any other explanation for why people think the world is beautiful or feel love).

 

People have done studies of things that should be quantifiable (for example the effectiveness of prayer in curing disease). Apart from any psychological benefits to those doing the praying, I am not aware that this has show any measurable improvements in rates or speed of recovery.

 

Similar problems arise with creationism versus the scientific theory of evolution. Creationism just says "God did it" and whatever data you find is taken as confirmation of that position (i.e. an extreme form of confirmation bias). The theory of evolution makes quantitative predictions that can be tested by observation and experiment; in that way hypotheses can be rejected or modified based on the data.

 

And when Creationism wears the frock of ID, the argument is "it looks designed". But without some quantitative way of detecting design, we are back to "well it looks designed to me" as the only test. A common way of trying to make this claim stronger is to say that "it must have been created all in one go because no simpler version could work". The trouble is, every such claim has shown to be false: we can find simpler examples that work. Unlike science, ID doesn't then drop the claims (or even those specific examples) it keeps on using them, despite the evidence.

 

So if you have some suggestions of quantitative evidence for God or Creationism/ID then they would be amenable to scientific investigation. But without that, it isn't science and it isn't evidence that can be used by science.

[Reg Prescott]

True, but the general philosophy is clear and that is what one should strive to follow as a general guiding principle.

 

Well, ajb, it's been a pleasure, as always, discussing these fascinating issues with you. Be safe.

[Strange]

Second point to consider for now is this: it's often the case that exactly the same observations are taken as evidence for two or more rival hypotheses/theories (hereafter just theories). Evolution vs Design offers a prime example. We all know the standard stockpile of putative evidence -- the eye, the wing, and so forth -- taken by one group as evidence for the exquisite adaptation brought about by natural selection, and by the other as evidence for the exquisite workmanship of the designer. Given that the aforementioned observations (eye, wing, etc) are admissible as evidence for evolutionary theory, they presumably meet the required standards for scientific evidence (including your criterion of credibility!), and thus must also be admissible as evidence for the Designer theory; after all they are the very same observations. Is it not so? In this case how can it be maintained, on pain of double standard, that there is scientific evidence for one theory but no scientific evidence the other?

 

The difference is that Creationists look at the eye and say: "Design. It couldn't happen by chance."

 

Science doesn't just look at one artefact and draw a conclusion. We have many different types of eye in different species. Many of these are related so we can see how some eyes have evolved by looking at extant species. We can also look at the fossil record and see how eyes have evolved over time through various lineages.

 

If the fossil record or living species showed that there were just two classes of animals, those with no sight at all and those with a complete advanced visual system, then that might be considered evidence for design or some sort of bizarre alien intervention. But we don't see that.

 

Evolution can also explain why some animals lose their sight if, for example, they live in caves with no light. On the other hand, Creationists just have to assume that God decided to design some non-functioning eyes for them, for her own mysterious purposes.

True, but the general philosophy is clear and that is what one should strive to follow as a general guiding principle.

 

And it is one that is followed (more or less) by scientists but not at all by creationists.

[Reg Prescott]

@ ajb

 

Just a little more...

 

Over your last few posts you've been telling us, I think, or at least implying -- you've been a wee bit coy -- that the evidence (or candidate evidence or putative evidence or whatever we want to call it. Alas, not being a scientist, I'm apparently excluded from having any say in these matters) is incompatible (my word) or inconsistent (yours) with the God-Did-It theory (or hypothesis or whatever we want to call that).

 

Is this an accurate characterization?

 

 

Consider, for example, your reply to my post #68 in which I said...

 

"Both theories are compatible with the evidence; why, then, do contemporary scientists choose natural selection over Design? It seems to me that considerations of explanation come into play here: Both theories are indeed compatible with the evidence but, on the orthodox scientific account, natural selection explains the evidence better than the Designer theory can, especially in cases where, unlike the eye and wing, the design appears to be less than exquisite. What do you think, ajm?"

 

and you responded (post #73)...

 

"In relation to evolution and creationism, the scientific community disagrees with you. There is no evidence that is of a scientific standard that supports creationism and intelligent design (as commonly understood). There is no way you can say that the evidence is consistent for both sets of ideas."

 

 

If we take your remarks at face value, the evidence, we must conclude, is consistent with one set of ideas but inconsistent with the other.

 

Granting that I haven't inadvertently distorted your comments (please acknowledge), and that inconsistency entails some kind of clash between theory and observation, then clearly the God-Did-It theory is falsifiable. Not only that but, on your account at least, it has been falsified.

 

Why, then, do I keep hearing that it's unfalsifiable? I'm willing to bet the family fortune that if I were to squander my Saturday searching through these forums, I could come back armed with a gazillion and one quotes to the effect that "The God thing is not falsifiable and thus unscientific."

 

Well, which is it: falsifiable or unfalsifiable? If it's unfalsifiable it surely cannot be inconsistent or incompatible with evidence. Do you agree?

Edited November 7, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[ajb]

Over your last few posts you've been telling us, I think, or at least implying -- you've been a wee bit coy -- that the evidence (or candidate evidence or putative evidence or whatever we want to call it. Alas, not being a scientist, I'm apparently excluded from having any say in these matters) is incompatible (my word) or inconsistent (yours) with the God-Did-It theory (or hypothesis or whatever we want to call that).

 

Is this an accurate characterization?

Without concrete examples, I have tried not to be too specific.

 

 

 

Well, which is it: falsifiable or unfalsifiable? If it's unfalsifiable it surely cannot be inconsistent or incompatible with evidence. Do you agree?

In relation to intelligent design, the theory may or may not be scientific depending on the actual claims made. Generally ID is understood as being pseudoscience; the scientific method is not really used. At best there is no real evidence supporting ID and worse the theory is not at all scientific and so cannot be tested.

 

You will have to look up the claims of forms of ID and see how they stand up. Personally, I am not that interested in the subtle differences between various versions.

[StringJunky]

.. Personally, I am not that interested in the subtle differences between various versions.

...because they are just different shades of wrong.

[ajb]

...because they are just different shades of wrong.

Exactly.

[Reg Prescott]

@ ajb and StringJunky

 

Well, that may or may not be the case (Creationism is a load of bollocks, hereafter ALOB), but there are two things I find disturbing:

 

 

1. In numerous threads on this site scientists continue to dismiss and ridicule -- in many cases rather viciously -- God, Creationism, Bigfoot, ET and a riot of other miscreants, as well as the putative evidence adduced by the ALOB aficionados which is supposed to support their respective theories. The refutations, though, generally consist of no more substance than "Your evidence is ALOB" or simply "You have no evidence".

 

It behooves us all to recall that the theory of continental drift was subject to the same scorn until only a few decades ago. Evidence that was once ridiculed is now exalted.

 

Personally, if some likely lad snickered and told me the gold ring I'm wearing is fake rubbish, I'd expect him to be able to distinguish ersatz from the real McCoy. And if I couldn't do so myself, I don't imagine I'd be going around sneering at other people's gullibility.

 

 

2. ajb seems content with the conclusion "If scientists say it's evidence then it's evidence. If scientists say it's not evidence then it's not evidence. And that's that!"

 

I'm somewhat astounded this conclusion has not been greeted with howls of protest from the other scientists among us. Are we to take it, then, that the matter of scientific evidence is arbitrary and irrational; in other words mob rule? If not, presumably there are good reasons why scientists admit certain observations, and exclude others, as evidence.

 

I happen to believe there are good reasons. I suspect you do too, however no one thus far has been able to articulate them. With a few exceptions, philosophers of science -- another maligned group who seem to inspire only contempt around here -- agree with me and attempt to identify these reasons, thereby vindicating the rationality of science.

 

ajb has been trying valiantly to help out, but the criteria he's offered so far (repeatability of observation et al) amount to only necessary conditions for evidential acceptance, giving us some clues as to what might get kept out, but telling us nothing whatsoever about what gets let in. By analogy, ajb's criteria are like saying "If you're not clean shaven and don't dress nicely you won't get a job at NASA." Possibly so, but presumably it takes a lot more than sartorial eloquence and a smooth face to secure a position among the other rocketeers.

 

Moth and I tried to make some headway in this regard with our discussion of ravens and instances, alas, arousing only more giggles in certain quarters. Meanwhile, yours truly was awarded yet another -1 rep point to my collection (post 60) for an analysis of logic. Will someone please explain that?

 

In conclusion, then, granting ajb's criteria we can say what is not admissible as scientific evidence. We still haven't the foggiest idea what IS.

 

 

 

On second thoughts, there are three things I find disturbing: the third is that the scientists here are apparently not disturbed by the first two things that disturb me.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Ophiolite]

It behooves us all to recall that the theory of continental drift was subject to the same scorn until only a few decades ago. Evidence that was once ridiculed is now exalted.

Since this viewpoint appears to be a key part of your objection to the rejections by members of incidents of ALOBs on the forum, it seems important to correct you.

 

1. I cannot think of any of the evidence for continental drift that was ridiculed by scientists. On the contrary, the evidence was generally used to support alternate theories, most notably that of land bridges and sunken continents. If you insist that the evidence was so ridiculed then a citation or two would be in order.

 

2. The theory of continental drift, as postulated by Wegner, or five years earlier, in slightly different form by Taylor, has not been accepted. Plate tectonic theory has some resemblance to it, uses some of the same evidence, but is quite different in mechanism and detail, and - to some extent - rose independently.

 

3. You assert that the theory of continental drift was subject to scorn until a few decades ago. (I should probably concede that sixty years is a few decades.) Your implication is that this was 1) true scorn, and 2) near universal.

In fact the theory was well received in several quarters - for example, in South America and South Africa. Some workers, most notably Arthur Holmes, offered similar suggestions, with different mechanisms.

Equally, one can make a case that "scorn" is an inappropriate term. Those who rejected the theory did so largely because of the absence of a then plausible mechanism. I doubt their rejection was any more scornful than my objective dismantling of your point in these three notes.

[Reg Prescott]

Well, here's the first hit Google returned:

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/?no-ist

 

"What’s even more extraordinary, though, is that the prosecutors based their case on a scientific insight that was, not long ago, the object of open ridicule..."

 

"Lingering anti-German sentiment no doubt intensified the attacks, but German geologists piled on, too, scorning what they called Wegener’s “delirious ravings” and other symptoms of “moving crust disease and wandering pole plague.” The British ridiculed him for distorting the continents to make them fit and, more damningly, for not describing a credible mechanism powerful enough to move continents."

 

"But it was the Americans who came down hardest against continental drift. A paleontologist called it “Germanic pseudo­-science” and accused Wegener of toying with the evidence to spin himself into “a state of auto-intoxication.”

 

etc...

 

Members may come to their own conclusions.

 

 

 

With regards "mechanism", it's quite clear, I think, that scientific theories are sometimes accepted even in the absence of a proposed mechanism. Newtonian physics leaps to mind immediately. And what exactly is gravity, Sir Isaac? How does this action-at-a-distance thing work? Ans: No idea, guv'nor. Quantum physics would seem to be another, but I'm no expert. Perhaps other members can provide some input.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

If you look at other professions (as much as i hate calling lawyers professionals) like law, there are standards of evidence.
Like a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt.
If it is more usefull to progress using "scientific evidence", and i think it is, wouldn't that be the best way forward?

[Reg Prescott]

If it is more usefull to progress using "scientific evidence", and i think it is, wouldn't that be the best way forward?

 

Quite so, Moth.

 

Ophiolite does raise an important point though; one that we haven't dealt with explicitly. In each case of ALOB allegations, does the objection lie with the observations themselves, or the conclusions drawn from the observations?

 

With Bigfoot, for example, most scientists I think would find the observations themselves unacceptable (unreliable testimony). On the other hand, with the examples I adduced myself regarding the Design vs Natural Selection controversy, the observations (i.e. evidence or potential evidence) are presumably unobjectionable -- Exhibit A: the human eye; Exhibit B: the bird's wing; etc., etc. -- what is objected to, rather, is that the observations support the Designer theory.

 

Which brings us full circle: in virtue of what can an observation be said to support a theory? And can only observations support a theory? (i.e. is there such a thing as non-empirical evidence? E.g. can factors such as simplicity, explanatory power, coherence with background beliefs, etc., also constitute scientific evidence?)

 

Getting back to continental drift, I'm not a geologist, nor am I particularly inclined to spend hours in the library or on the Internet investigating the debacle. It might be easier if I simply delete the sentence in post 91 that Ophiolite finds problematic. Would you like me to do that, Ophiolite? Or leave it there, with your objection duly noted, and allow other members to decide for themselves?

Edited November 8, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

My impression is that the objection to evidence of intelligent design is the evidence is, at it's heart, an argument from ignorance, we don't know how this could happen so God.
Same for bigfoot or ufos, the argument is: i've never seen this before so it could be X.

if its evidence at all, it's pretty weak.

[Reg Prescott]

My impression is that the objection to evidence of intelligent design is the evidence is, at it's heart, an argument from ignorance, we don't know how this could happen so God.

Same for bigfoot or ufos, the argument is: i've never seen this before so it could be X.

 

if its evidence at all, it's pretty weak.

 

Hmm, with all due respect, I don't find that answer convincing, Moth. Isn't this the case with our attempts to describe and explain all puzzling empirical phenomena? We observe something that requires explaining (we're ignorant) -- in this case, the appearance of design in nature -- and then set about trying to demystify it. Natural selection serves precisely the same function, as far as I can see. In your own words: we don't know how this could happen so natural selection.

 

Before Darwin came along, there was, I believe, only one serious contender: the appearance of design is explained by a Designer. And a perfectly good explanation it is, certainly good enough to persuade the greatest minds on the planet for untold millennia. It renders intelligible that which was previously unintelligible. It removes, or at least purports to remove, the ignorance. Just as the theory of natural selection does.

 

These days there are two main contenders, and as I've said earlier, scientists, by and large, consider the Darwinian account to be a better explanation, and thus more likely to be true. I don't endorse ajb's contention that Creationism is incompatible or inconsistent with the evidence. The Creator theory can surely be made compatible with any evidence or observation, as anyone who has debated with the religious knows well. The theory can be tweaked to fit anything -- and I've expressed my own misgivings that evolutionists have a disturbing tendency to do the very same.

 

I'd be more inclined to argue that both theories are supported by the evidence, but that the epistemic warrant for natural selection outweighs that of the Designer theory. It may simply be dogged adherence to the principle of methodological naturalism -- nothing can count as evidence for God -- that precludes scientists from saying so and, thus, giving such short shrift to the You-Know-Who theory.

 

Though I must admit, there are times when I look at the pet cat and wonder : Could this really have come about through natural forces operating gradually over a period of a billion years or so? It may or may not be true, but it strains credulity almost to the breaking point. Don't you think?

 

I'm guessing you'll say no . And that's what familiarity does to us.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[moth]

We still seem to agree for the most part, I think natural selection due to replication with errors and environmetal pressures is enough to explain the cat. Maybe not my biirds though, only some supernatural trickster could have thought up Conures;-).

[Reg Prescott]

We still seem to agree for the most part, I think natural selection due to replication with errors and environmetal pressures is enough to explain the cat. Maybe not my biirds though, only some supernatural trickster could have thought up Conures;-).

 

Ha ha!

 

Erm, Conures?

[Ophiolite]

Members may come to their own conclusions.

I asked for citations - you came up with secondary (and maybe even tertiary) commentaries. I certainly have formed my conclusion.