Is the theory of punctuated equilibrium a gamechanger for evolutionary biology?

[axocanth]

I suppose the "limits" involved are (i) relative velocities small compared to c and (ii) "weak gravitational fields" (suppose that means only slight curvature of spacetime). There's a discussion of this here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...eneral-relativity-exactly-how-wrong-is-newton. (You can see the first responder is quite incensed by the notion that Newton was shown to be "wrong", i.e. that his theory is "false".)

Any calmer and I'd be on a slab.

What I have been doing is quoting verbatim what the world's leading experts have to say on that matter and taking their remarks seriously. Indeed, I appear to be the only person present who does.

Other posters such as exchemist are effectively telling us: "Oh, never mind Einstein, Wheeler, and Bohm. They're just exaggerating. They don't know what they're talking about. Listen to me instead."


Exchemist proceeds -- as others do -- to confuse epistemological issues with questions of pure semantics. What we can show to be true, or show to be false, prove, disprove, what we believe, our knowledge, etc (all epistemological matters) are irrelevant to the inconsistency of two assertions (a matter of semantics).

Thus, if the two theories are mutually inconsistent, then one cannot -- on pain of inconsistency and contradiction -- assert both. You have to to take a stand; you have to assert one or the other, not both.

I'll write more about this in the other thread.

 

[axocanth]

No, I have stated that the approaches were different. The back drop w.r.t. the theory was also different as Einstein had published SR 9 years earlier.

So we are agreed the the two theories (classical Newtonian mechanics vs general relativity) are totally different (even though they yield similar predictions in some circumstances). Right?

Is it possible to assert both? e.g. Can a scientist consistently assert at once, for example. that there is an attractive gravitational force and that there is not an attractive gravitational force? Can a scientist consistently assert at once, for example. that space is absolute and that space is not absolute.

Is it correct to say that if a scientist asserts (or believes) one theory, he must deny the other? - to do otherwise would be inconsistent.

Which one of the two theories do the majority of contemporary physicist assert?

 

[axocanth]

Which one of the two theories do the majority of contemporary physicist assert?

P.S.

Which of the two theories do you assert, Pinball? E.g. Would you be more inclined to say "I think Einstein's theory is true" or "I think Newton's theory is true"? Or if you prefer "I think our universe is (roughly) as Einstein describes".

Or do you refrain from taking a stance altogether? - both are just useful tools and all talk of truth/falsity is best left to navel-gazing philosophers (oh, and navel-gazing Einstein, Bohm, Wheeler, Thorne, and Greene too).

 

[axocanth]

Needless to say, what all these models share is a degree of explanatory and predictive power concerning observations of nature. A pseudoscience like ID or astrology is incapable of that.

Exchemist ignores yet another problem though. If we have two or more mutually incompatible models or theories -- e.g. Newton vs Einstein -- then it is not possible that both are true, thus it is not possible that both do any real or genuine explanatory work. Any sense of understanding yielded by the explanations of at least one of them (perhaps both) is entirely specious.

For example, to say that the motion of the planets is explained by both an attractive force and the curvature of spacetime is to contradict oneself. At least one of them (perhaps both) is doing no real explanatory work at all.

Unless of course exchemist wishes to argue that both the "Santa Claus theory" and the "Mummy and Daddy theory" are providing genuine explanations and understanding of what's going on behind the scenes to account for prezzies around the tree on Dec 25.

 

[Pinball1970]

I suppose the "limits" involved are (i) relative velocities small compared to c and (ii) "weak gravitational fields" (suppose that means only slight curvature of spacetime). There's a discussion of this here: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...eneral-relativity-exactly-how-wrong-is-newton. (You can see the first responder is quite incensed by the notion that Newton was shown to be "wrong", i.e. that his theory is "false".)

Is it possible to assert both? e.g. Can a scientist consistently assert at once, for example. that there is an attractive gravitational force and that there is not an attractive gravitational force?

No you can treat the phenomenon as either and get the same results or similar results within a certain domain.

If you are looking at black holes you need Einstein.
Cannon balls you need Newton.
Electrons? You can forget both and use QM because 1. Gravitational effects are small enough to forget and 2. They would not be able to include it in the theory anyway. There is no current quantum theory of gravity, lots of "in progress."

 

[axocanth]

Ok, but you haven't addressed some of my questions yet (post #123). Don't worry! I'm not trying to put you in a corner or anything like that. I'm just trying to help us all get more clear about all this. There may be certain consequences of their views that some members haven't fully appreciated yet.

How about this then, Pinball? Do you believe Einstein's theory of general relativity?

First of all, to emphasize again, I'm not asking whether you believe accurate predictions can be derived from the theory (i.e. I'm not asking does it work or is it useful). Everyone believes that! What I'm asking is, do you believe the theoretical account Einstein offers about how our universe really is, i.e., spacetime curvature and all the rest of his ontology?

Here are some possible answers you might consider:

(i) Yes, I believe Einstein's theory (= I think the theory is true).

(Of course, if you choose (i), to be consistent you must assert that Newton's theory is false = I don't believe Newton's theory of gravity)

(ii) I'm agnostic. I am not committed to a belief in the truth of Einstein's (and Newton's) theory.

(iii) No, I don't believe it. (= I think the theory is false).

(iv) Something else. Please elaborate.

 

[axocanth]

In post 336 of "The Stage Theory of Theories" I wrote the following:

@ TheVat above

They do say (and S. J. Gould says it somewhere) that when a controversial new view emerges, proposed by Smith say, very often its acceptance happens in three stages:

Stage 1: Opponents vociferously reject what Smith is saying. "Smith is fulla shit. What Smith is saying is outrageously false."

But then it gradually becomes clear that Smith's new view can't be dismissed so easily. So . . .

Stage 2: Opponents concede that what Smith is saying is true, but it's of no importance. It's trivially true. He's saying nothing new.

and then after a few years . . .

Stage 3: Opponents begin to promulgate Smith's view themselves. It's not only important, but they thought of it first. "Yes, I've been saying that for years".


I'd say we're hovering between Stages 2 and 3 [vis-à-vis "there is no such thing as the scientific method" - axo] right now lol.

For anyone interested S. J. Gould says it (or something similar) on pages 352-3 of his 2007 "Punctuated Equilibrium", and how PE acceptance went through the three stages. I'll type it all out if someone lets me play with their kitten for a day.