The Backside of Evolution

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

You think if we don't know everything we can know nothing. And that's nonsense. Evolution means change. The Theory of Evolution describes how that happens. The evidence which supports it is overwhelming, and nothing in biology makes sense without it. Sure we will learn more about it, but that's how science works. We accumulate knowledge in spite of sometimes finding out that our knowledge is incorrect or incomplete. We still use Newton's Laws of Motion even though it is ignorant of relativity.

Very good point, we can know something, at any given stage.

That accumulated "evidence" is just that - it seems right at the time.

So if evolution means change - which it does,

the theory of evolution is the theory of change.

The theory can also change with progress.

That change is uncertain.

So the theory is an uncertainty of uncertainties.

or better - a certainty of uncertainties.

Let's be positive and say that change means progress.

The theory of progress, or the progression of progress.

And so untimately in the middle of this progress we assume it is a progress for the better, can we assume that
or is that just a point of view?

 

[spidergoat]

There are degrees of certainty. Scientists are not unaware of the limitations of certain theories. The value of a theory is in it's predictive power. In other words, if it works, it's good and useful even if it's incomplete. Some theories are very unlikely to be completely overturned. The periodic table, for instance, was developed without much knowledge of atomic theory and how the number of electrons in certain orbit effects the reactivity of an element. Even though we added knowledge to the existing table, it was never overturned and remains an important part of understanding the elements.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

All language is open to ambiguity and doubt. You don't have to work so hard at misunderstanding it though.

Parts of language can be ambiguous, but to say all language is open to it, is shooting yourself in the foot.

The whole purpose of language is to eliminate uncertainties.

But what you are saying is correct, when it comes to twisting it, that can be done with truth itself, but does not mean that absolutes cannot exist.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

There are degrees of certainty. Scientists are not unaware of the limitations of certain theories. The value of a theory is in it's predictive power. In other words, if it works, it's good and useful even if it's incomplete. Some theories are very unlikely to be completely overturned. The periodic table, for instance, was developed without much knowledge of atomic theory and how the number of electrons in certain orbit effects the reactivity of an element. Even though we added knowledge to the existing table, it was never overturned and remains an important part of understanding the elements.

A clear statement about contexts. Much along the lines of your previous post. It's OK to be uncertain then? I think it is.

Predictive power,

so important, can be verified with time and experience,

how does this differ from self fulfilling observations?

 

[spidergoat]

A clear statement about contexts. Much along the lines of your previous post. It's OK to be uncertain then? I think it is.

Predictive power,

so important, can be verified with time and experience,

how does this differ from self fulfilling observations?

Can you elaborate on that question? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Can you elaborate on that question? I'm not quite sure what you mean.

It's human nature to see what we would like to see, and to interpret things by what we know. This is OK, but it can also colour what we research.

Like the person who wants to believe that the world is flat, he goes outside and everything is evidence for it, he is enraptured by the fact that buildings are not constructed on a rounded slab, he can put the level on the ground and prove beyond all doubt that the world is flat.

Then we have context, he gets a ride into outer space and is completely stunned and then faints, he cannot understand how anyone is able to cling to the underside.

Logic is the word. Human logic has the capacity to be blind. Self fulfilling research.

 

[sideshowbob]

Parts of language can be ambiguous, but to say all language is open to it, is shooting yourself in the foot.

The whole purpose of language is to eliminate uncertainties.

Language works much like science in that way. With either of them, we can only approach certainty. If somebody doesn't understand what you say, they can ask a question and your answer may clarify your meaning. The two of you can approach an understanding. The discusion might even help you understand your own position better.

Similarly, science refines its theories by proposing and testing new hypotheses. To call a theory a guess is like calling a discussion a word.

But what you are saying is correct, when it comes to twisting it, that can be done with truth itself, but does not mean that absolutes cannot exist.

An expression I sometimes use is that reality is asymptotic to truth. You can get closer and closer to the truth but you can never quite get there. People who think they have absolute truth are often just too lazy to do the work necessary to get closer to the truth, so they pretend that they're already there.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Language works much like science in that way. With either of them, we can only approach certainty. If somebody doesn't understand what you say, they can ask a question and your answer may clarify your meaning. The two of you can approach an understanding. The discusion might even help you understand your own position better.

Similarly, science refines its theories by proposing and testing new hypotheses. To call a theory a guess is like calling a discussion a word.


An expression I sometimes use is that reality is asymptotic to truth. You can get closer and closer to the truth but you can never quite get there. People who think they have absolute truth are often just too lazy to do the work necessary to get closer to the truth, so they pretend that they're already there.

I agree and would add that what we know today, is the tip of the iceberg and that truth is a never ending book of interest.