Richard Sosis … says the model adds a new dimension to the debate over how religion could have evolved

So Sosis puts this within a defined context, an existing debate.

The headline is what is wrong: “Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests.”

In it, Callaway betrays that he is ignorant of what can be concluded from what: He writes with clear premise language: “distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information…” as the model of religion considered in the simulation (I respect that that he didn’t say “false” or “imaginary”). But it is modeled as a genetic predisposition.

Sosis’ wording suggests no more than that he is adding to an already existing debate, Callaway’s summary tries to broaden the implication to span to an area larger than what was tested.

It is quite possible that in investigating “how religion may have evolved” the end goal is to document that it did evolve. Once they get a reasonable enough model, someone can indeed evoke the typical ad Ignorantium that tends to be used here and say that they have given a reasonable enough case for evolved origin and the challenge is to prove “how else” religion came to be.

What’s interesting is Callaway’s faith in the process that requires a fit model even while the model is being disputed, despite the model being the only suggestion of verifiability in the endgame argument. The ultimate argument says that provided that we have given you a solid model for religion as evolved, you have to prove to us “how else”. Here is a case that the model has omitted an angle (or this research is not significant) or even has previously run counter to this model, and yet despite the model being in process, it remains a sufficient enough “verification” that I would accept that Callaway’s own misunderstanding does not fall under the exact pattern of Sosis’ model. Truly that Sosis’ study “suggests” that religion was evolved outside of a context that doesn’t suggest religion was evolved is not verified–at least within Callaway’s text. So how much, given that Callaway’s take is suspect, does Callaway’s interpretation of Sosis’ study fall–especially given that publication in the NS more than constitutes “passing along”–within the parameters specified as religion.

Ultimately, I don’t think Sosis has a case. He doesn’t address how avoidable “unverifiable” propositions are. I love the idea that gets propagated about the “verifiable in principle” which suggests that we can impose an unverified suppositions on what is “verifiable” but not as yet verified. Based on what we believe is likely to be verified–yet unverified. The funny think is is that this often gets put into the mix as just as important as things that we have already verified. Imagine for example that the value of a computer circuit were on the basis that it was theoretically verifiable that electricity can be conducted through a medium in a constant state, so as to hold states and create signals. Would we have “technology” that was only “theoretically” verifiable?

“Theoretically verifiability” is only an ossification of an answer to the problem of any definite answer to what is worth pursuing from what is already known. The harder problems of skepticism are not to everyone’s liking so they invent these little schemes of “unverified” knowledge.

Taken at it’s base “verifiable” means “able” to be verified. How able? Well, theoretically able. How soon until we hear that “scientific consensus” verifiability is the only verifiability that could make sense? So the consensus is verified by its being consensus. You see, the ad Populum argument doesn’t work in the world of Science, where we need consensus, and that it was theorized as a fallacy by ancient Greeks not currently up to snuff on 21st century science.

“Evolutionary simulations” are 10-a-penny these days. If I were an atheist eager to employ my skills at propaganda-programming, perhaps I’d employ the following recipe:

1. Try and imagine how a false belief could possibly benefit a member of my simulated population. (Of course, it is a dangerous question to ask exactly what it means for a simulated phenotype represented in the memory of a souped-up Turing Machine to hold a “false belief”. Who cares? Scientists trump philosophers in today’s market. I’ll accuse them of sophistry if they even dare to challenge me.)

2. Initiate and breed population so that there will be a tendency to preserve those members which hold false beliefs. Wait a minute! My palms are starting to sweat. What happens if the results aren’t as I wish? Step three…

3. Failing the desired outcome, run the program again! It doesn’t cost taxpayer money to repeat this kind of experiment with the parameters tweaked, and I don’t have to inform anyone of the outcome. How wonderfully unaccountable!

[I have worked with EAs before. I know how awkward it is to get them to evolve in the "right" direction.]

4. If (3) doesn’t produce the goods, I can show that the unstoppable march of evolution weeds out “believers in the unreal”. NS will surely publish that too. It’s win-win: I can either demonstrate that religious people shouldn’t exist, or else show why they do! (Oh oh. Philosophy alarm again. Does evolution say what does happen, what did happen, what could happen, or what should happen? I can’t remember. Who cares? As a scientist, my only job is to humbly tremble before the evidence. As long as it suits me.)

5. One of steps (3) or (4) is guaranteed to work. But what if I am taken to task by somebody who has ever read a book? I will couch the whole thing in tentative language so that I have full deniability—but everyone will know what I am getting at. Because many today are eager to hear a Scientist debunk “religion” [again], it will sell like a hot cake.

6. Finally, dealing with criticism.

(i) If a religious person criticises me, I will say they are “infected” with a meme. Fantastic! Nobody can prove me wrong, and I can make a fool out of them in front of my friends.

(ii) If a philosopher criticises me, I will point out that my elite has done more for the consumer than they ever did. People want cures, robotic limbs, speech recognition like Star Trek, tackling world hunger? They NEED me.

(iii) If a scientist criticises me, I will at first attempt to discredit them somehow. If I am trumped by a “bigger scientist”, I will be crestfallen but employ clever rhetoric to demonstrate how this study is of limited, but nevertheless important value. “Baby steps.” I never /claimed/ to have the complete answer. Anyway, hopefully other big scientists will come to my rescue. They can endorse me [I mean, my work], I’ll endorse them [oops---theirs].

(iv) If a layman or somebody online criticises me, I’ll just launch into them no-holds-barred. Don’t they know who I am?? I’m smarter than you: I’ve got a PhD.

The wonderful thing is, you can decide the outcome of all this before you even declare a variable.

I am sorry if this offends anybody, and I honestly don’t go out of my way to be cynical. I love science and many of my mentors have been scientists. I have passionately followed theoretical computer science since I was young. (A bit odd, I know.) I am annoyed to see the field abused by hired goons like this. But, sadly, this is how I perceive many establishment scientists these days. I’m sure the public must do too, which is why NS don’t deserve such a wide audience. It is only by the recipe above that I can possibly see how this tripe could end up in print.

Rant over.

You make an exellent point.

http://mothwo.blogspot.com

David

To answer your question: Socrates had socratic genes while Plato had platonic genes. All quite simple don’t you know.

On a more serious note, doesn’t it amaze you at the pervasiveness of reductionary thinking within modern science. Most do not even realize that it is a philosophical assumption. If rationality, or real knowledge is reducible to genes, then how do we distinguish which genes lead to real knowledge? How can you possibly trust your own genes, less it be out of blind faith? In other words, I concur!

http://www.evolutiondebate.info/BitByte.pdf

The following link might be of interest as well:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....mulations/

Just this morning I happened to stumble across a post we had done quite some time ago on Avida, so I enjoyed the irony of checking UD today and finding your post. Seems like you have enough material for a whole category of Bogus Computer Simulations.

Also, about those FEA animations. I’m hoping most of them are of somewhat better quality than this. Though the trailing end warping due to absolutely nothing at all is certainly interesting.

Unverifiable information? Like frog to prince evolution?

Like ‘the brain is an outgrowth of the eye’ stories supposedly explaining the evolution of eyes? I kid you not, right HERE.
- from a paper by Dr. Ma’ayan Semo, University College London
Strange how normally very intelligent people can say such dumb things whenever Darwinism is involved.

Religious conservatives are just as likely to have children who grow up to be gay as anyone else.

I doubt that this is true, because the children of religious conservatives are taught (either explicitly or implicitly) to reinforce their “straight” impulses and resist their “gay” impulses. That was my experience. I CHOSE to be straight every time I resisted homosexual impulses in favor of a traditional Christian sexual orientation. As a direct result, I now have a wife and two kids. If I had gone with my feelings, I would likely not have produced any offspring at all. How can you say that religious training has no effect at all on sexual orientation?