Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What Scientists Really Do

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a comment to a recent post Dr. Liddle wrote: “Scientists do not appeal to authority; they appeal to evidence and argument, and all their conclusions are provisional, not absolute.”

I will grant that Dr. Liddle’s statement summarizes fairly what scientists should do, but I am astonished that anyone – much less someone who has been around the scientific block a few times as Dr. Liddle obviously has – would believe that is what scientists actually do. Every single scientific revolution, from Newton to Einstein, was met with vociferous opposition by the scientific establishment with a vested interest in the status quo. Indeed, I have previously noted on these pages that scientists often hold to the prevailing orthodoxy with a hidebound obstinacy that would make a mediaeval churchman blush.

Appeals to authority? If I had a dime for every every time I’ve heard “the overwhelming consensus among scientists is [fill in the blank],” I could retire comfortably today. Provisional conclusions? Give me a break. Tell that to the next Darwinist who gets red in the face, stamps his feed and yells “Darwinism is a fact, fact fact!”

 

Comments
Hi Lee- no one knows any odds pertaining to new allele fixation.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Anything one can gamble on at a Casino is strongly influenced by chance.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Peter, All I am saying is that natural selection is NOT non-random. Any output that is depended on random inputs, will also be random.Joe
February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Joe,
Biased by chance would mean (in this case) strongly influenced by.
For example?Peter Griffin
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Joe,
Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. That means natural selection is biased by chance events, as opposed to being biased by designed events. Chance rules the variation. Heredity is 50/50 at best. And fecundity, can’t tell until after.
Can you express that mathematically? It seems to me you are saying we can't know anything really about natural selection because what's selected might just have been selected because the other thing, the thing that would in fact have been selected, got trod on by something else randomly. Is that about it?Peter Griffin
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
If you want to be successful, there is huge pressure to come up with some thing novel, and very little to confirm the status quo.
That's a false choice. You forgot about finding novel ways to confirm the status quo.ScottAndrews2
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Joe, this is your second warning.Barry Arrington
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
Biased by chance would mean (in this case) strongly influenced by.Joe
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
I am neither.
That is debatable. And when scientists attack the status quo pertaining to the ToE they get expelled.Joe
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
What question did I refuse to answer? And why can't you address my explanation? Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. That means natural selection is biased by chance events, as opposed to being biased by designed events. Chance rules the variation. Heredity is 50/50 at best. And fecundity, can’t tell until after. Or is that not clear enough?Joe
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
And DrREC was banned for incivility? You have just told me that I am either mentally retarded or dishonest. I am neither. Scientists have vested interests alright, but not in the status quo. They have a vested interest in finding something erroneous about the status quo. Originality is what is valued in science, not replication. Unfortunately, in some respects.Elizabeth Liddle
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
But it is not false, Barry. It does appear that you have a wrong idea about what makes for success in the scientific world. If you want to be successful, there is huge pressure to come up with some thing novel, and very little to confirm the status quo. If there's a problem, that's the problem - exciting but inadequately tested ideas make the scientific headlines (I mentioned cold fusion, but it's not the only example) while solid replicative work is hard to get published anywhere decent. Same with funding - as I said, "incremental" is a damning word on a grant review. Grant-giving bodies want novel and exciting stuff, not "incremental" work. It's actually a problem. It's just the complete opposite of the problem you think you've identified.Elizabeth Liddle
February 10, 2012
February
02
Feb
10
10
2012
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. Dr. Liddle, this is touchingly naïve if you really believe it. Nobody over the age of 10 with an IQ over 80 is that naive, even operating under the principle of charitable reading.William J Murray
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
"Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance." Only X is 100% Y. Therefore Z is 0% Y. Logic Joe. If faster cheetahs eat more, slow and fast cheetahs will reproduce equally well. "totally biased by chance" An impossibility demonstrated by the question you refuse to answer above. pitiful....DrREC
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
markf, my next post might interest you.Barry Arrington
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, I read your post. The things you say after the sentence I quoted do not make the sentence I quoted any less false.Barry Arrington
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
I know, also sperm count ... But all that aside, I'm referring to heritability odds, assuming of course, that conception occurs, and ultimately with regard to fixation odds in a given population size.leebowman
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Bingo! That is one of the fields I am trained in (though outside of the Anglo-American context). To markf's point (who still hasn't learned not to cite lowest Wiki in such discussions!), there is a lack of respect for SoS predominantly out of fear of exposure and thus discomfort. They'll cite 'immature field,' though it's coming up on 90 yrs! If you knew you were being observed, that the 'mystery' of your 'creativity' were under scrutiny, that the 'holiness' or your peer review process were being watched and deviations from the 'norm' recorded, if the 'citation index' world was found compromised for groupism and tribalism, would you feel as safe in defending 'normal science' or even 'cutting-edge science' as you did before? More importantly, what do 'natural & social science' mean to people and do you want your kid(s) to become one who does this? The answer to the OP's question is that 'Yes, scientists appeal to authority.' Which authority and whose authority become the operative questions. IDists quite obviously appeal to authority too.Gregory
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
If fecundity is normal or optimal, is the heritability 50/50 in passing along a trait?
It all depends on the personality, if alcohol is involved and if any protection is used.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
If fecundity is normal or optimal, is the heritability 50/50 in passing along a trait? The recipient obviously does not share the same trait, so what are the actual odds, or range of odds? Is it possible for the trait to be inherited but become recessive in the progeny? If so, how do the odds change for the progeny to pass it along? I'm not familiar with heritability functions, but would like to be so educated, since it appears to me to possibly be an overlooked but viable fly in the NS ointment? Any explanatory links would be appreciated.leebowman
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Let's just back up: Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. That means natural selection is biased by chance events, as opposed to being biased by designed events. Chance rules the variation. Heredity is 50/50 at best. And fecundity, can't tell until after. Or is that not clear enough?Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
All your thetans are belong to us.Starbuck
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
"Bias and chance are practically antonyms." Good luck supporting that bit of tripe.
Let's try something simple. If you took the probability distribution for the number of heads obtained in many iterations of ten flips of a fair coin, you'd get a chart that looks like this: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0312/Rickman/fig2.gif If the distribution was skewed from the expected outcome of a CHANCE process, you would call it ________, and conclude the coin was loaded. Fill in the blank.DrREC
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Most scientific papers start with a review of the literature of course, but that's generally to make it clear that the research question is well-founded, and often includes references to conflicting findings. In conclusion, typically, you might write: "our findings are consistent with the findings of X...." or "our findings conflict with those of X; this may because in our study we did Y instead of Z" or "our findings are consistent with those of X, but suggest a different interpretation of their findings..." And then of course there are systematic reviews and meta-analysis, but again this is not "appeal to consensus" but a rigorous attempt to find out what the available published evidence, in total, suggests.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
How can something be biased by chance?
If it is due to blind and undirected processes.
Bias and chance are practically antonyms.
Good luck supporting that bit of tripe.Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
This post appears to lack a single example of a scientist appealing to authority. I imagine that it is possible to find one - scientists are human after all - and scientists quite often appeal to consensus for good reasons which Lizzie and others explain above. I think you would struggle to find a peer reviewed scientific paper which used authority or consensus as evidence.markf
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Yes, I agree Lynch was very clear. Which is why it's important not to extropolate from what Lynch said to some other person's usage of the word. And there isn't "a standard definition" of Darwinism.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
How can something be biased by chance? Bias and chance are practically antonyms.DrREC
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
The emails and the data speak for themselves. Evos love to giggle at "cdesign proponentists" and here we have everything one could possibly want to expose the fraud of human induced global warming. Sweet...Joe
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Barry, you need to read the rest of my post. It's not enough just to be against the consensus! And of course with climate change, we are talking about forecasts with potentially huge implications for millions of human beings, so it's not just a question of which model is right (which we can't test until testing becomes irrelevant) but of risk-benefit calculation. And in any case, you don't need a fancy scientific model to spot the fact that large chunks of Antarctic ice shelf are breaking up and melting! Nor do you need anything more than HS physics to realise that once non-floating ice starts melting (and the flow from Antarctic glaciers has increased substantially since the ice-shelves locking them in have broken up) sea levels will rise. It might seem unnecessarily alarmist to you in Colorado, but to those of us at sea level, it's, well, alarming! So I think climate change is a somewhat special class anyway. I hope the most alarming forecasts are pessimistic, but forewarned is forearmed.Elizabeth Liddle
February 9, 2012
February
02
Feb
9
09
2012
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply