#14586: — 01/28  at  09:51 AM
Speaking of skepticism ....

Limited Form of Cold Fusion Replicated in Lab

via Michael Froomkin

http://www.discourse.net/

#14589: Orac — 01/28  at  10:13 AM
This one is gonna be good, everyone. All the science bloggers out there who contribute regularly to Tangled Bank should consider submitting their work. As long as it talks about refuting pseudoscience (like creationism); pseudomedicine (like some alt-med claims), or pseudohistory (like Holocaust denial), it will be welcome.

I'm hoping St. Nate makes it biweekly, so that I can host the second Skeptics' Circle. (If he makes it monthly, the second one won't be until March 3 and I'll be otherwise occupied out of town at a meeting I'm presenting at).

Trackback: The Skeptic's Circle Tracked on: Stupid Evil Bastard (63.247.143.6) at 2005 01 28 12:22:27
There's another Blog Carnival meme thing about to get underway that might be of interest to SEB readers. Saint Nate is launching The Skeptic's Circle on February 3rd and he's looking for submissions: * Urban legends and hoaxes. If you spotted an oft-reported story that doesn't hold up to critical thought, this is the perfect opportunity to let people what you found. I hate plugging myself, but check out this post about Bill Gates' pictures - and if that doesn't……

#14658: — 01/29  at  12:05 AM
This is sort of off topic but I wanted to make some comments on the "Ruse muddies the waters" thread before it rolled off the page.

Here's my thoughts on Darwinism being like religion:

Recently I saw some news segments that featured debate on whether the teaching of Intelligent Design should be curriculum taught alongside evolution in public school science classes. The individual taking the side of evolution was cornered at one point, regarding the origin of matter itself. He repeated the often heard mantra that the universe and corresponding matter composing it simply have always existed. What a classic example of "blind religious faith," I thought, particularly for someone who persists in characterizing the issue as science versus faith.

The first time that I heard the concept of evolution presented as a religion or philosophy, I snickered at the audacity of such a proposition. But the more I have taken notice of how the arguments are made, the more I see the religious aspects of the evolutionary position.

Let’s draw an imperfect, but illustrative analogy to the position of the atheist above. Suppose I come home from work one day and notice that my neighbor’s long grass has been cut. I say to my wife that my neighbor must have cut the grass with his lawnmower. My wife demurs, saying that the grass cut itself. Are these equivalently sufficient explanations as to how the lawn was cut? In one case we have a purposeful and intelligent agent, using a specific means to accomplish a goal. In the other case, you have an inanimate object acting upon itself without purpose. And notice that the explanation of the neighbor cutting the grass with his lawnmower is meaningful, without any discussion of where the neighbor, lawnmower or the grass came from. In like manner, saying that matter has always existed, is not an equivalent argument to saying that the universe was created by God.

Another canard employed in this debate, is that evolution is "scientific," whereas Intelligent Design (ID) is religious mythology. But does evolution itself qualify as a scientific theory? Or, like Creationism, is it a metaphysical theory? Anyone who has taken an introductory class in the Philosophy of Science, knows a few basic tenets regarding scientific inquiry. First of all, only observational or naturalistic evidence is accepted. If the inquirer asks a how or why question, then develops a hypothesis, it must be testable, and thus subject to falsification before it can move beyond that point. In which respects can any evolutionary theory meet this test? The evolutionist who says that the "fact" of evolution proves the non-existence of God, must derive such information outside the parameters of empirical scientific methods -- a realm that he claims contains no meaningful truth. Thus, such a claim is that of religious dogmatism. Any masonry, regardless of its ornate design or quality composition, cannot be stacked four feet in mid air without a solid foundation. Those who claim evolutionary theories can do away with the need for God are attempting to do just that philosophically speaking.

There is also a question of evidence. No evidence is neutral in the sense that it requires no interpretations. Interpretations themselves depend on the assumptions of the interpreter. This, at least in part, accounts for discrepancies of opinion in those who say there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, and those who claim there are many. It seems curious, though, that some evolutionists and non-theists, such as Stephen J. Gould and Francis Crick, were not comfortable with the classical Darwinian paradigm of gradual changes via natural selection. Both came up with theories of origin, which made the need for intermediate types a non-factor. Why would that be expedient if it were not essential?

But there are logical dilemmas that must be accounted for in any cogent philosophical analysis of theory formation. In Gould’s model of "punctuated equilibrium," we see evolution happening in fits and starts, rather than more gradually. But if adaptations of the species by natural selection (survival of the fittest), to environmental changes, are the catalyst of classic Darwinian theory, what mechanism propels change in Gould’s paradigm? Imagine a group of engineers with the task of making motor vehicles more fuel efficient. They agree that by removing the engine, they will make the vehicle lighter and more aerodynamic, thus accomplishing the objective. But do you suppose that by closing the hood, they can hide the fact, or convince anyone, that the vehicle can be propelled with the energy source removed?

In Crick’s theory, we see the formation of intelligence on earth as a function of a more progressive race from outer space (directed panspermia). But this assertion results in an infinite regress that does nothing to eliminate the need for God as the initial uncaused cause. How can Crick’s hypothesis be seen as anything more than a non-theistic version of blind religious faith? Here we see brilliant men willing to run a fool’s errand on a treadmill suspended over a quicksand pit. And for what reason -- to rationalize away the existence of God?

Of course I will get many angry replies to what I have said so far. I will be told that I misrepresented these ideas; that I am an idiot; or that my ignorance is neglecting the details and the technical nomenclature of these propositions. And that is generally the way the topic is debated. Either you believe in evolution by default, or else there is no place for you at the table of credibility. There is no objective forum to convey honest skepticism without banishment.

We must also denounce the farce of objectivity. Science is supposed to take you where the evidence leads, and must have a patina of skepticism about it. Yet how many evolutionists are rooting for the universe to be a specific way, namely without an ultimate purpose or meaning. I have noted in previous editorials, statements by either Gould, professor Nagel, and Aldous Huxley, that are steeped in this sort of bias. That is religion and not science.

I don’t believe ID is necessarily science, in the way science has been defined. ID simply asks the question of whether the data can be best understood according to the presumption that the universe was generated through spontaneous creation. We ought to conduct an investigation to find out. Both evolution and ID are metaphysical theories. If academic freedom is paramount, where one treads, the other should be allowed to follow.

#14666: — 01/29  at  05:08 AM
Robert,

Speaking as one of the lesser scientific lights here, heck I am not a scientific light at all; there is a theme running through your post looking for purpose and design and direction. Others may want to address your details, but that is not my approach.

Purpose is not necessary to explain evolution.

Backing up. Your first story about the lawn is easily explained. You know there is a neighbor and you know there is a lawnmower. Proposing that the neighbor used the lawnmower when you werent looking and then checking with the neighbor or someone else who may have observed will give you your answer. There is no faith involved, just questions and investigation which in this case would lead to answers. A simplified version of research. Then, one day you notice a field of alfalfa mowed, go through the same process and discover a farmer on a tractor mowed it. Then you see a field of corn flattened and find a similar answer. A repeatable pattern and voila, you formulate Robert's Theory of Mowing. Many scientists repeat your observations and write books with drawing and pictures. Now every time someone sees some plant life flattened by a hailstorm they accuse Robert of an unproven theory that might better be explained by god or mother nature. You dont know if there is a god or what tools it may or may not have, and you cant investigate it's existence, so you cant prove these people wrong. However it they sit around and wait for god in the form of hailstorms to mow their lawns ........ Believing dont make it so.

It is also not necessary to 'believe' anything about how life started. It is simply an unanswered question that some researchers continue to look for answers to. There is a great deal of information, much of it is hard to find, time is limited, history is long. Maybe somebody will figure it out, but I doubt it. Nonetheless I am here, have procreated and my son is not exactly like me, nor his mother, but a variation.

Generational changes do not need to be a response to anything other than the normal and abnormal variations that mixing two gene pools together create. Some of these variations will survive and some will not. A variation that causes the subject to die before procreating will obviously not be passed on.

So, I would say that science is looking to explain the how of life changes through investigation, and ID/religion as you present it is focused on the why. How do you investigate a why? ID cant be investigated because it is a faith based explanation.

I can assume that my purpose is to leave the world a better place than I found it. I dont need a god to get to that point, I can simply be responding to the teaching I have received by the society around me .... which is what religious people are doing, too.

There need not be a why. That is my philosophy, and it in no way interferes with my ability to function. Best of all it allows me to disagree with people who believe that religion explains the why, but does not require me to then consider those people bad because they believe. It also does not require me to be angry.

Trackback: Skeptics' Circle & Carnival of the Godless Tracked on: The Two Percent Company's Rants (67.18.141.194) at 2005 01 29 12:12:11
Two new round ups came to our attention earlier this week. First, is the Carnival of the Godless, created by Unscrewing the Inscrutable. Entries are closed for the first issue (which will be out tomorrow). Brief details are as follows:...