…and this is a 
Last night, I asked for a copy of an article (I have plenty now, thanks!) that was getting a lot of press. The reason I was looking for it is two-fold: the PR looked awful, expressing some annoying cliches about evolution, but the data looked interesting, good stuff that I was glad to see done. Awful and interesting — I'm a sucker for those jarring combinations. My favorite pizza is jalapeno and pineapple, too.
I'm going to split my discussion of this article in two, just to simplify dealing with it. This is the awful part. I'll do the interesting part a little later.
The paper is about the appendix, that tiny little organ in your gut that doesn't have a whole lot of obvious function. The point of the work is to try and show that yes, it does something — which is fine and interesting, although I will quibble a bit with their interpretation. Where they go awry, though, is in trying to pick a fight with a dead man, and making that the focus of their public relations.
Now, some of those same researchers are back, reporting on the first-ever study of the appendix through the ages. Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.
"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"
Charles Darwin is dead. Your research can't be very cogent if your approach to drum up interest is to dig up a 120-year-old corpse and kick it around; is there anyone alive who disagrees with you who can put up a more informative and entertaining struggle? What this does is pick this one fellow as a symbol of the whole edifice of evolutionary theory, which has the advantage of making one's work seem very, very important (even if one is stacking the deck to do it), but has the disadvantage of giving every creationist on the planet something to masturbate over, and they're icky enough without your help.
It's also annoying. Charles Darwin was wrong about many things — I'll even give an example at the end of this article — and it's part of the nature of science that everyone's work will be revised and refined over time, and some of us will even be shown to be completely wrong. It's rather unseemly to collect a lot of data that Darwin did not have, run it through PAUP 4.0 on a fast computer, map the data onto a molecular consensus phylogeny, and cackle gleefully over discovering something Darwin did not know. Really, it doesn't make you a better scientist than Darwin.
To make it even worse, people who do this can't even make the corpse-fight a fair fight — they have to stuff the pathetic dead body with straw. In this case, they're padding Darwin's investment in the appendix a fair amount. They cite one work by Darwin, The Descent of Man, which mentions this issue. He wrote one whole paragraph on the topic, and here it is, in its entirety; it was presented briefly as part of a long list of human rudimentary structures, such as wisdom teeth, muscles of the ear, and the semilunar fold of the eye.
With respect to the alimentary canal, I have met with an account of only a single rudiment, namely the vermiform appendage of the caecum. The caecum is a branch or diverticulum of the intestine, ending in a cul-de-sac, and is extremely long in many of the lower vegetable-feeding mammals. In the marsupial koala it is actually more than thrice as long as the whole body. (46. Owen, 'Anatomy of Vertebrates,' vol. iii. pp. 416, 434, 441.) It is sometimes produced into a long gradually-tapering point, and is sometimes constricted in parts. It appears as if, in consequence of changed diet or habits, the caecum had become much shortened in various animals, the vermiform appendage being left as a rudiment of the shortened part. That this appendage is a rudiment, we may infer from its small size, and from the evidence which Prof. Canestrini (47. 'Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.' Modena, 1867, p. 94.) has collected of its variability in man. It is occasionally quite absent, or again is largely developed. The passage is sometimes completely closed for half or two-thirds of its length, with the terminal part consisting of a flattened solid expansion. In the orang this appendage is long and convoluted: in man it arises from the end of the short caecum, and is commonly from four to five inches in length, being only about the third of an inch in diameter. Not only is it useless, but it is sometimes the cause of death, of which fact I have lately heard two instances: this is due to small hard bodies, such as seeds, entering the passage, and causing inflammation. (48. M. C. Martins ("De l'Unite Organique," in 'Revue des Deux Mondes,' June 15, 1862, p. 16) and Haeckel ('Generelle Morphologie,' B. ii. s. 278), have both remarked on the singular fact of this rudiment sometimes causing death.)
Note why Darwin classed this appendage as vestigial: because it is greatly reduced compared to the homologous organs in non-human relatives, and because it currently exhibits a great range of variation, which is apparently non-functional. These are criteria which the paper in question does not refute at all. Darwin does say that the appendix is "useless", and the paper will show some evidence that that is wrong. It's also irrelevant.
The reason why it is irrelevant is that the presence of some function is not part of the definition of a vestigial or rudimentary organ — Darwin obligingly concedes that evolution will salvage some utility out of organs with little retention of their original function, but which are present as a consequence of contingency. He discusses this at greater length in On the Origin of Species, and here is a significant chunk of the relevant writing.
Organs or parts in this strange condition, bearing the plain stamp of inutility, are extremely common, or even general, throughout nature. It would be impossible to name one of the higher animals in which some part or other is not in a rudimentary condition. In the mammalia, for instance, the males possess rudimentary mammae; in snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in birds the "bastardwing" may safely be considered as a rudimentary digit, and in some species the whole wing is so far rudimentary that it cannot be used for flight. What can be more curious than the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; or the teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of unborn calves?
Rudimentary organs plainly declare their origin and meaning in various ways. There are beetles belonging to closely allied species, or even to the same identical species, which have either full-sized and perfect wings, or mere rudiments of membrane, which not rarely lie under wing-covers firmly soldered together; and in these cases it is impossible to doubt, that the rudiments represent wings. Rudimentary organs sometimes retain their potentiality: this occasionally occurs with the mammae of male mammals, which have been known to become well developed and to secrete milk. So again in the udders in the genus Bos, there are normally four developed and two rudimentary teats; but the latter in our domestic cows sometimes become well developed and yield milk. In regard to plants the petals are sometimes rudimentary, and sometimes well-developed in the individuals of the same species. In certain plants having separated sexes Kolreuter found that by crossing a species, in which the male flowers included a rudiment of a pistil, with an hermaphrodite species, having of course a well-developed pistil, the rudiment in the hybrid offspring was much increased in size; and this clearly shows that the rudimentary and perfect pistils are essentially alike in nature. An animal may possess various parts in a perfect state, and yet they may in one sense be rudimentary, for they are useless: thus the tadpole of the common salamander or water-newt, as Mr. G. H. Lewes remarks, "has gills, and passes its existence in the water; but the Salamandra atra, which lives high up among the mountains, brings forth its young full-formed. This animal never lives in the water. Yet if we open a gravid female, we find tadpoles inside her with exquisitely feathered gills; and when placed in water they swim about like the tadpoles of the water-newt. Obviously this aquatic organisation has no reference to the future life of the animal, nor has it any adaptation to its embryonic condition; it has solely reference to ancestral adaptations, it repeats a phase in the development of its progenitors."
An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules within the ovarium. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on a style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a rudimentary pistil, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed and is clothed in the usual manner with hairs, which serve to brush the pollen out of the surrounding and conjoined anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swimbladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
I've highlighted the part most important for this discussion. Darwin did not discuss the appendix or caecum at all in the Origin, but this description does apply. If a portion of the gut, a digestive organ, is diminished in size such that it no longer contributes to the primary function of the organ, but does retain a secondary function, such as assisting in immunity, or as the authors of the recent paper will argue, in acting as a reservoir of bacteria for recolonizing the gut, then it is still a vestigial organ. It has lost much of its ancestral function.
I do not understand why this is so hard for so many people to comprehend. Biology is plastic and opportunistic. Accidents of history will always still be incorporated into the whole of the organism; we make do, or we die. Just because something is does not mean that the entirety of its nature is the product of selection.
I mentioned that I'd point out errors in Darwin's understanding. They're there, but note that seeing them now 150 years after he wrote his big book does not make me smarter than Darwin, nor does it invalidate the overall picture of his theory. You can see one 'error' in the quote above: we are now pretty certain that the original function of the swimbladder in fish was respiratory. It evolved first as a supplement to the gills, providing access to the rich oxygen content of the atmosphere, and was secondarily adapted to function for bouyancy. Hah, silly Darwin, that he did not know a detail of paleontology and phylogeny that would be worked out a century after his death!
He also made a more substantial error. He wondered how organs became smaller over time, and his answer was, unfortunately, a bit Lamarckian and also a bit muddled.
It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in rendering organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow steps to the more and more complete reduction of a part, until at last it became rudimentary,- as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which have seldom been forced by beasts of prey to take flight, and have ultimately lost the power of flying. Again, an organ, useful under certain conditions, might become injurious under others, as with the wings of beetles living on small and exposed islands; and in this case natural selection will have aided in reducing the organ, until it was rendered harmless and rudimentary.
"Disuse" is the magic word there: if a cavefish lived in the dark and never used its eyes, the idea was that its progeny would then have smaller eyes. This is not correct, but it was a central part of Darwin's invalid theory of heredity. This is a much more substantial failing of Darwin's work, but again, I can't claim credit for figuring this out; it took the work of Mendel to get the core of genetics puzzled out, and then it took a whole generation of scientists to work out how genetics and evolution fit together. We can say "DARWIN WAS WRONG!" about that, but we can't really say that about his treatment of vestigial organs in general, which seems to hold up fairly well…perhaps because Darwin himself was not so fervently committed to the absolute adaptedness of every single feature of every single organism as some of his later followers.
That said, I'll move along to the substance of the paper next, which really does have some good stuff in it. Most of my complaints here are with the abysmal presentation of the ideas in it by the popular press, aided and abetted by the scientists themselves. Just keep in mind that whenever these press releases that declare "Darwin was wrong" appear, it's usually an example of grandstanding and the regrettable tendency of competitive scientists to think the way to impress people with the importance of their work is to get into a penis-measuring contest with poor dead Chuck.
Smith HF, Fisher RE, Everett ML, Thomas AD, Randal Bollinger R, Parker W (2009) Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. J Evol Biol. 2009 Aug 12. [Epub ahead of print]
Life Science
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Islander | August 22, 2009 11:52 AM
"It's also annoying. Charles Darwin was wrong about many things — I'll even give an example at the end of this article — and it's part of the nature of science that everyone's work will be revised and refined over time, and some of us will even be shown to be completely wrong. It's rather unseemly to collect a lot of data that Darwin did not have, run it through PAUP 4.0 on a fast computer, map the data onto a molecular consensus phylogeny, and cackle gleefully over discovering something Darwin did not know. Really, it doesn't make you a better scientist than Darwin."
Couldn't have put it any better... Rock on PZ!! Great article.
Posted by: Drosera
|
August 22, 2009 11:54 AM
Darwin wrote:
He should have written 'orang utan'; 'orang' just means man.
See, I can also nitpick on a famous dead scientist.
Posted by: daveau | August 22, 2009 12:03 PM
Ogg the caveman was wrong, too. It's a shame he didn't have a particle accelerator to work with. He just had to bang two stones together.
Posted by: Dave C | August 22, 2009 12:03 PM
I saw the (extremely poor) article for this paper on ScienceDaily. Was hoping you would write about it! :)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 22, 2009 12:13 PM
But how can anyone say the Darwin (the peace of Dobzhansky be upon him) was wrong? We're supposed to worship Darwin (may Dawkins bless him). A god is ipso facto never wrong! PZ (may Darwin forgive his heresy) has misinterpreted Darwin's holy writ.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 22, 2009 12:18 PM
I propose that what's left of the "Year of Darwin" be rechristened the "Year of Smith et al."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 12:21 PM
Gasp, science actually going beyond the work set out by the innovator? That won't give me the vapors, but some idjits think that makes the whole work of the innovator wrong. But any scientist just smiles and approves of the advancement in knowledge. One can imagine the ghost of Darwin enjoying the moment.
Posted by: SLC | August 22, 2009 12:22 PM
As Enrico Fermi once said, a scientist who has never been wrong is a scientist who hasn't accomplished anything substantive. As Prof. Myers points out, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. So what? Issac Newton was wrong about a particle theory of light being able to describe diffraction and interference. Albert Einstein was wrong about the existence of black holes.
Posted by: Gustav Nyström | August 22, 2009 12:23 PM
I was going to say that 'Tis Himself wins the thread, but then I read Sven DiMilo's comment. What is it the kids say these days? Ah, lol.
Posted by: caynazzo
|
August 22, 2009 12:29 PM
PZ: "I do not understand why this is so hard for so many people to comprehend."
Speaking for myself, if I'm not careful, I will use terms and classifications and categories as a fixative for complicated concepts and ideas. It comes down to a shortcut, an practical oversimplification that too often leads to rigid thinking. I suppose it can be helpful as a memory aid but harmful if mistaken for actual understanding. And I would certainly be embarrassed if I committed this shortcut into my published thoughts.
Posted by: Algo2 | August 22, 2009 12:30 PM
"Darwin was wrong! Hah! proven 150 years later with lots of hard work how could he not know all this? Obviously evolution is false!" - my interpretation of what a creationist would honestly be thinking.
Darwin's theory needed some ironing out. That's not a secret or even an offense to science. Mistakes with creationism: ∞
Posted by: IBY | August 22, 2009 12:31 PM
Picking a fight with a dead guy, huh? We'll see how they fare once the zombie apocalypse happens. Darwin will be all over their brains.
Posted by: Tyler | August 22, 2009 12:32 PM
Somewhere in the distance, a godbot's quote mining machine comes to life...
Posted by: Chris | August 22, 2009 12:37 PM
The worst part about these types of articles and the whole "Darwin was wrong!" headline is that those uninformed people who see it in reputable magazines don't understand what that menas - they take it as a sign that there might be something to all the creationist propaganda that evolution is false.
There are a lot of people I know who don't understand/care about science as much as I do who could easily be lead astray by stuff like this.
Posted by: penn | August 22, 2009 12:40 PM
The sad thing is that it seems like a cool paper. Showing how the appendix has evolved over time, and has changed its primary functionality is really interesting stuff. It also makes me sad since I have been appendix-less for over 80% of my life.
Picking a fight with Darwin over it is just stupid. Every physics paper published in the 21st century could talk about how it proves Newton wrong, but that doesn't make their research any more interesting. It's a waste of time to focus on the ignorance and mistakes of scientists in centuries past. 150 years from now I hope scientists and even laymen know a great many things that I do not and can not know now.
Posted by: Algo2 | August 22, 2009 12:41 PM
You mean like the same people that believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth? There is a quite high percentage of the population that is ignorant and happy with being that way. That's when I remember what a friend once told me, "We are the exception, not the rule".
Posted by: uncle frogy | August 22, 2009 12:42 PM
""I do not understand why this is so hard for so many people to comprehend. Biology is plastic and opportunistic. Accidents of history will always still be incorporated into the whole of the organism; we make do, or we die. Just because something is does not mean that the entirety of its nature is the product of selection.""
as you said "we make do or we die".
it is not the best or the reason or purpose for life. no design is perfect complete, immutable. It is really that simple, how ever we can we do if not we die what ever it takes. That should be emphasized more often.
I await more science thinking.
Posted by: s.k.graham | August 22, 2009 12:47 PM
I'm not so sure Darwin's reference to "disuse" was necessarily Lamarckian. Did Darwin say anything more specific relating disuse of an organ resulting in heritable underdevelopment?
Any "unused" organ still represents the resources use to construct it -- resources which could be better allocated to something else. Thus "disuse" simply implies a natural selection pressure towards reduction. The energy and material to construct a cave fish's eyes would be better used producing more babies, or growing longer "feeler" whiskers, or fighting off disease, or countless other things.
No post-Darwin advances in genetics or evolutionary theory are required to understand this.
Is there any reason to suppose that this is not what Darwin had in mind, vis-a-vis "disuse" and the reduction in size of rudimentary organs?
Why would Darwin suppose that atrophy was any more heritable than any other acquired trait (i.e. stronger muscles from exercise, or longer neck from stretching to reach higher leaves)?
Posted by: Laura | August 22, 2009 12:49 PM
Yeah I totally lol'd at #5.
Sometimes scientists seem to lose sight of what science is.
Posted by: Susan | August 22, 2009 12:57 PM
So, basically, they didn't understand what Darwin meant by "vestigial" because they didn't do all their homework. Thanks, PZ! As always, very interesting.
Posted by: recovering catholic | August 22, 2009 1:05 PM
I'm glad PZ brought this up just now, as I'm having a problem with Jerry Coyne's discussion of vestigial structures in "Why Evolution Is True". On p. 58 he writes "Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characteristics have no function. A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it is functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved." (Coyne's italics.
Wonderful. But Coyne goes on to refer to the wings of kiwis, ostriches, and penguins as all being vestigial. While certainly I can agree that the kiwi's wings are vestigial, if the male ostrich's wings play an important role in balance while running, I wouldn't consider them vestigial as they are quite large. Calling the penguin's flippers vestigial wings is even more of a stretch. By definition a "vestige" is a remnant: something smaller than the original. If we are to refer to all homologous structures with different functions as vestigial, it seems to have become a useless term.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 22, 2009 1:08 PM
Ostrich forelimbs are vestigial wings, but fully functional balancers.
Posted by: Peter G | August 22, 2009 1:12 PM
Interesting stuff to be sure but the most striking fact I discovered is that someone else shares my predilection for jalapeno/pineapple flavors. I prefer mine in jelly form on crispbread. It is to be reincarnated for.
Posted by: James | August 22, 2009 1:14 PM
For me, almost as annoying is the start of a scientific talk that quote mines Darwin to the point that he thought about the problem in a similar fashion as the speaker and that somehow makes them walking in the steps of this great scientist.
Posted by: Willem | August 22, 2009 1:17 PM
Darwin: "It appears probable that disuse has been the main agent in rendering organs rudimentary. It would at first lead by slow steps to the more and more complete reduction of a part, until at last it became rudimentary,- as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark caverns..."
PZ: ""Disuse" is the magic word there: if a cavefish lived in the dark and never used its eyes, the idea was that its progeny would then have smaller eyes."
I'm not familiar enough with all the details of Darwin's work to even consider disagreeing here, but I am left wondering: Is it possible that Darwin meant that when an organ isn't used for survival, then the animal's offspring won't necessarily or immediately be born with smaller version of it, but that they can get away with it if by chance they were born that way?
Then, without selective pressure to maintain the organ's size and use for competitive advantage, descent with modification will jitter about unguided and eventually ("by slow steps") favour the most efficient use of resources (such as a reduction in size of the unused organ), or inevitably lead to an accumulation of modifications (mutations) which impede or disrupt embryonic development.
That seems Darwinian and not Lamarckian to me. Perhaps I'm guilty of trying to interpret the paragraph in a decidedly Darwinian light, but wouldn't Darwin have wanted that?
That being said, I'll say again that I'm not familiar with all the details of Darwin's work. Perhaps he's made other statements which undermine my interpretation.
Posted by: raven | August 22, 2009 1:22 PM
Cue the creos, "vestigal organs don't exist in 10 9 8 7...... " They hate vestigal organs. It means they have to invent another lie.
Of course, some creos claim that evolution can only go downhill, genetic entropy. That as a species we are degenerating from the perfection of Eden after the Fall. Soon we will all be fundie xians and then eventually slime molds or some such.
Creos never can keep their lies straight.
Here is one example of a muscle useful for swinging through the trees that is well developed in monkeys but is nonfunctional enough to be absent in 10% of the population.
Posted by: recovering catholic | August 22, 2009 1:23 PM
PZ--Exactly what makes a structure vestigial, then? Does it have to do with the evolutionary distance between organisms? That seems a slippery slope when we discuss transitional forms...
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | August 22, 2009 1:25 PM
#13, thank you. I had a song stuck in my head, and your comment reminded me of Nena's 99 Luftballons. Now I have a much better song stuck in my head.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 22, 2009 1:29 PM
Penguin wings are certainly not vestigial in any meaningful sense. Their use in water instead of air might be labeled one of Gould's "exaptations," but they have certainly been tweaked by selection to function better in their new medium.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | August 22, 2009 1:31 PM
@#28 Thomas Winwood....German or English version. Oh crap, now it's in my brain (German).
So, who's got the over/under on the amount of time before this article is posted at AIG (not the criminal insurance company) as a proof that "scientists" think Darwin is wrong? I saw 48 hours.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 22, 2009 1:33 PM
Of course, some creos claim that evolution can only go downhill, genetic entropy. That as a species we are degenerating from the perfection of Eden after the Fall. Soon we will all be
fundie xians and then eventuallyslime molds or some such and then eventually fundie xians. - ravenFixed for you ;-)
Posted by: SiliÄ O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 22, 2009 1:44 PM
It would appear I'm incapable of having an original thought. Tyler beat me to it.
Posted by: Tito | August 22, 2009 1:45 PM
As a general surgeon, it seems pretty obvious to me that God put the appendix there so that it would get appendicitis and help me put my kids through Bible College.
No, I'm not serious.
Posted by: bsk | August 22, 2009 1:57 PM
Thanks for addressing this, PZ. It's always great to come out of one of your posts knowing something new. I had a somewhat garbled understanding of vestigial organs before this.
Posted by: Sid Schwab | August 22, 2009 2:17 PM
I wrote about this a while back, in response to an article by the beloved Ken Ham. Having held a few hundred appendixes in my hand, I assert a modicum of authority. I think most of what I wrote still holds entirely true.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
August 22, 2009 2:22 PM
This made me immediately think of "The Graduate", 1967:
Posted by: not a gator | August 22, 2009 2:22 PM
@15
Newton? Bah. What physicists cream their pants about is the idea of proving Einstein wrong.
So far hasn't happened. They just keep proving him right. (Figure of speech! Begone, ye philosophimacators!)
Posted by: not a gator | August 22, 2009 2:24 PM
@23
Jalapeno Mayhaw Jelly. Maybe you can only buy it in North Florida. It's the s*** with some crackers and cream cheese.
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
August 22, 2009 2:26 PM
Discounting the poor way they used ole Chuck Darwin, the upshot of this work is that pro-biotics in the diet are a good idea. So good, that our gut has its own re-inoculation reservoir. Besides the rest of our guts, and our total immune system, pro-biotics probably help protect the appendix. (said as he sipped his home-made yogurt and diet soda concoction.)
Posted by: not a gator | August 22, 2009 2:28 PM
@ 26 raven
Fascinating. That dovetails with with the Lovecraft links the other day. His particular neuroses seemed to link sex with degeneracy. (In one story, a Dutch family in upstate NY devolves into ravening white-haired orangutans or some such.)
Posted by: bilbo | August 22, 2009 2:29 PM
So now we're supposed to sugar-coat our findings in the hopes that creationists won't take it out of context? I'm sorry - I was taught to never let political/social considerations influence the conclusions of scientific work. I think I'll keep it that way, thanks.
Posted by: not a gator | August 22, 2009 2:48 PM
Yikes! I followed the Surgeon's Blog link, and check out this comment from 2007:
Daniel Newby: possible reasons to select for appendix
Posted by: SiliÄ O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 22, 2009 2:51 PM
Good to see you comment here again, dr Schwab!
Posted by: RM | August 22, 2009 2:54 PM
He made wisdom teeth for the same reason.
Posted by: Louis | August 22, 2009 3:12 PM
Hmmmm examining Bilbo's comment at #41 I'll give it a 3.0 for "poor attempt at trolling by deliberately missing the point".
I doubt the Russian judge will be any kinder. After all, Bilbo missed the landing, couldn't even construct a fully fledged straw man, and was only minimally huffy and pompous.
Poor show. Must try harder if you want to be the Usain Bolt of trolldom.
Louis
Posted by: Islander | August 22, 2009 3:13 PM
Bilbo # 41-
The entire point was that they DID let political/social considerations affect them. Envoking Darwin didn't help their results at all, they just wanted to sound impressive.
Posted by: Islander | August 22, 2009 3:15 PM
Damn, beat to the punch. Well played sir.
Posted by: Tyler | August 22, 2009 3:16 PM
No, dildo. The not so subtle message is, amusingly enough, precisely what you iterated: "... never let political/social considerations influence the conclusions of scientific work."
Which means you agree with what PZ said, you ironic fucktard.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 22, 2009 3:18 PM
Your disingenuous distortion is noted.
I suppose -- if you were not the complete hypocrite that we all know that you are -- you would not oppose "not sugar coating" every astronomical discovery including, in the press release, a triumphant crowing that geocentrism, and the medieval Catholic Church, are still wrong? Or every biological or cosmological press release proclaiming that Genesis is still 100% wrong?
Hypocrite that you are, you will do nothing of the sort.
Posted by: Tyler | August 22, 2009 3:21 PM
Heh...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 22, 2009 3:25 PM
Sounds like what they'll make us drink in hell. (Said as he sipped his Oban 14 year old single malt Scotch whiskey.)
Posted by: SiliÄ O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 22, 2009 3:38 PM
Would you kindly stop insulting that wonderful invention, the dildo, by comparing it to out latest boring troll.
I'd much rather you just stick to that Tolkienitic nick he's chosen for himself.
Posted by: not a gator | August 22, 2009 3:44 PM
Darwin and the vermiform appendix
Is it just me, or does the title of this article sound like one of those Harry Potter books?
I'd buy a Charlie Darwin book.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 22, 2009 3:45 PM
s.k.graham,
Yep.
"From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited."
Which, really, was quite understandable at the time. There was a ton of apparent evidence for inheritance of acquired characteristics, and even some scientific studies--like Brown-Séquard's research on guinea pigs, which Darwin cites--suggested that organisms could pass on the effects of surgeries to their offspring.
No, Darwin was quite clear that natural selection and the effects of use/disuse were, in his mind, separate factors:
"In some cases we might easily put down to disuse modifications of structure which are wholly, or mainly due to natural selection."
He gives examples of cases where there is, or could be, a selective pressure towards reduction, as in burrowing animals whose eyes get abraded and inflamed by the soil, and in such cases he speaks of natural selection and the effects of disuse operating concurrently. But in other cases, he argues that there can be no selective pressure, so it must be purely a result of disuse:
"It is well known that several animals, belonging to the most different classes, which inhabit the caves of Carniola and Kentucky, are blind....As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, though useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, their loss may be attributed to disuse."
He didn't seem to think much of the selective disadvantage of wasting developmental resources; he required an organ to be positively harmful before he'd credit its loss to selection.
He accepted that all of those acquired traits might be heritable, actually.
"Changed habits produce an inherited effect as in the period of the flowering of plants when transported from one climate to another. With animals the increased use or disuse of parts has had a more marked influence; thus I find in the domestic duck that the bones of the wing
weigh less and the bones of the leg more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild duck; and this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parents. The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with these organs in other countries, is probably another instance of the effects of use. Not one of our domestic animals can be named which has not in some country drooping ears; and the view which has been suggested that the drooping is due to disuse of the muscles of the ear, from the animals being seldom much alarmed, seems probable."
He also thinks it plausible that mutilations can be inherited, though he says that the evidence is "not decisive."
Actually, one of the main advantages Darwin claimed for his theory of pangenesis is that it could explain Lamarck-style inheritance of acquired characteristics. He was much less of a pure selectionist than, for instance, Wallace or Galton.
Posted by: not a gator | August 22, 2009 3:49 PM
@54
Isn't it true that in some limited context you *can pass on acquired traits? Doesn't age of onset of Huntington's disease have something to do with age of parent?
I would welcome a clarification; love reading about this stuff.
Posted by: Gordon S | August 22, 2009 4:01 PM
>My favorite pizza is jalapeno and pineapple, too.
What. The. Hell.
Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2009 4:08 PM
It nevertheless remains undeniable that whatever putative function or benefit the appendix may have in us humans, it does not, in magnitude, even come close to approaching the mortality risk of appendicitis before the age of safe abdominal surgery, and does not change the fact that, on the balance, the appendix remains a detrimental organ.
And even the contention in the paper that appendicitis is a product of more modern diets and was uncommon or even nonexistent during the period when we were hunter-gatherers does not alter the vestigiality of it one bit. In fact it demonstrates that selection pressure has changed in recent times and that humans are still evolving. The appendix has gone from serving an essential digestive function to becoming a vestigial remnant that might have had some secondary residual, to becoming a vestigial remnant that was actually detrimental to survival and was presumably on its way to being eliminated altogether when yet another environmental change (the development of surgery) drastically reduced the degree of detriment, returning the organ to a vestigial remnant, and preserving it from total elimination from the population.
Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2009 4:17 PM
#55:
Well, technically, all mutations are acquired characteristics that occur in the parent and are subsequently inherited by the offspring.
Of course, in the Lamarckian sense, the definition of "acquired characteristic" is actually more limited - they are adaptions to environmental challenges developed by the parent which then must be inherited by the offspring, which so far, by and large, have not been observed to happen.
Posted by: No BS | August 22, 2009 4:22 PM
"So now we're supposed to sugar-coat our findings in the hopes that creationists won't take it out of context? I'm sorry - I was taught to never let political/social considerations influence the conclusions of scientific work."
If you stopped looking in the mirror while you post you won't get things backwards.
Posted by: Tyler | August 22, 2009 4:26 PM
Could you expound upon this please?
Posted by: No BS | August 22, 2009 4:27 PM
"I'll be brief.
Evolution is nothing more than a creation myth for scientists.
Counting coup...
Your friend from Maui..."
Briefer: Bullshit.
Posted by: tresmal | August 22, 2009 4:32 PM
not a gator: Were you thinking of epigenetics?
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 22, 2009 4:36 PM
You may have been brief, but your comment lacked both whit and accuracy.
Don't you actually have to land a blow (even rhetorically) to "Count coup"?
Too much poi I guess.
;)
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 22, 2009 4:44 PM
Charlie Wagner, is that you?
Your crackpot blathering is neither articulate nor intelligent nor wisely chosen.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 4:49 PM
Yep, banned trolls who can't accept being banned. And they wonder why they were banned in the first place. Might have something to do with their lack of morals and perspective...
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 22, 2009 4:59 PM
I was unaware that the term "terminally annoyed by" had magically become "afraid of".
PS: I've seen the rantings of David Mabus/Dennis Markuze, and you, sir, are no Dennis Markuze.
Posted by: syzygy | August 22, 2009 5:03 PM
"Music for Nerd"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfPZQBWa5k
Posted by: Cpl. Cam | August 22, 2009 5:15 PM
It's really kind of a testiment to just how right Darwin was that 150 years later scientists are still trying to make names for themselves by nit-picking at the minor details of his theory.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 5:20 PM
Just keep in mind that whenever these press releases that declare "Darwin was wrong" appear, it's usually an example of grandstanding and the regrettable tendency of competitive scientists to think the way to impress people with the importance of their work is to get into a penis-measuring contest with poor dead Chuck.
so when creationists say we've made a religion of Darwin, will they remember all the times when eager scientists were actually trying to prove him wrong?
of course not.
oh, and in case it wasn't mentioned, I did post this yesterday a couple of times, but here it is again as it's a good summary of how we actually define and test what is and isn't vestigial, with particular attention to the appendix:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 5:22 PM
Could you expound upon this please?
wassamatta, you've never heard it before?
something tells me you have...
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 5:23 PM
amphiox #57
How have you come to this conclusion? What was the presurgical-age risk of death from diarrhea in folks of reproductive age or less?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 5:24 PM
Your friend from Maui...
I've heard that eating too much poi can starch up your brain.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 5:27 PM
Don't you actually have to land a blow (even rhetorically) to "Count coup"?
"He walked through an open gate, ran into the middle of a crowded thoroughfare, and screamed like an idiot."
from: "Adventures of the mentally retarded, vol. 2"
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 5:32 PM
So now we're supposed to sugar-coat our findings
What you mean WE, kimosabe?
Posted by: MadScientist | August 22, 2009 5:54 PM
I thought "that's one to miss" when I saw the claims that the appendix was not vestigial after all. I think I'll still skip the article and just wait for PZ's next post (a 'Crap Lite' version?). In my own field there are still enough old fogies that anyone crowing about being better than some dead man usually get a pretty bad whipping and references to articles (often also by dead folks) which are required reading before the authors attempt their revisions.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 6:01 PM
I thought "that's one to miss" when I saw the claims that the appendix was not vestigial after all.
It's worth reading for the phylogentics workup, which surprisingly had not been done before.
too much work for too little gain, I suppose.
Posted by: amphiox | August 22, 2009 6:09 PM
"What was the presurgical-age risk of death from diarrhea in folks of reproductive age or less?"
Unknown. But we do know that in the post-surgical age no difference in any form of mortality, diarrheal or otherwise, has ever been demonstrated in people who have had their appendix removed versus those who haven't.
And even today the mortality/morbidity risk of appendicitis is not zero. Surgery does not guarantee a successful recovery, risks of complications remain, and appendicitis can still be misdiagnosed or missed.
The bottom line is this: we have solid and irrefutable evidence that having an appendix increases a person's risk of death. The degree of this increased risk has varied with environmental factors like diet and the availability and reliability of surgery. But at no time has this risk ever been zero. And so far there has not been any quantified survival benefit accrued from possessing an appendix. Thus, the appendix remains a detrimental organ, as far as we so far know.
Posted by: Tyler | August 22, 2009 6:13 PM
Oh, but of course. I was just (apparently) way too subtly pointing out that the goal of PZ's post clearly wasn't to be witty (and [apparently poorly] attempting to get a laugh out of asking pineapplehead to expound on his brevity).
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 6:21 PM
ah.
forgive me for stepping on your toes then.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 22, 2009 6:22 PM
Note to self: If Myers is getting the pizza, have something else.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 6:24 PM
The bottom line is this: we have solid and irrefutable evidence that having an appendix increases a person's risk of death. The degree of this increased risk has varied with environmental factors like diet and the availability and reliability of surgery. But at no time has this risk ever been zero.
coincidentally, Coyne postulated in WEIT that one of the reasons the appendix hasn't been lost altogether in humans is that further reducing the size would increase this risk due to also decreasing the size of the entrance (which increases the chance of blockage).
Posted by: SC, OM | August 22, 2009 6:33 PM
Anyone want to fund my on-site research?
Posted by: Willem | August 22, 2009 6:35 PM
Thanks Anton (#54), that's very revealing!
However I'll admit, I'm left somewhat adrift now that I can no longer worship Darwin as an infallible deity, or fill out "Evolutionist" on my census form. -sigh-
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 6:38 PM
amphiox #80
So you are saying that in the post-surgical era only the appendix is overall detrimental as far as we know?
I am not convinced that this is true.
Posted by: jo5ef | August 22, 2009 8:31 PM
Damn, I thought i'd invented the chicken-jalapeño-pineapple pizza whne i worked at a pizza cafe 15 years ago.
I think PZ is over-reacting a bit here but he makes some good points nonetheless. Mind you I, haven't seen the PR he mentions but the abstract seems innocuous enough.
Posted by: Pete | August 22, 2009 8:40 PM
PZ didn't expose the half of it! The Science Daily article goes on to quote William Parker of Duke University as follows: "Darwin simply didn't have access to the information we have. If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution." Talk about an ignorant cheap shot! Darwin knowed everything.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 22, 2009 9:21 PM
What's the difference between science and apologetics?
Don't ask these guys:
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=105791
Posted by: RC | August 22, 2009 9:32 PM
Musings of a Post-Grad battling their way into academia...
1) Always refer to Darwin in anything you publish.
2) Darwin is always wrong.
3) Prostitute oneself to the general media.
4) Grandstanding is ALWAYS appropriate.
5) The dead can't fight back. Kill your supervisor.
These things impress hiring committees. So does a clock tower and a rifle.
Posted by: Fil | August 22, 2009 9:32 PM
I had some trouble reading past jalapeno and pineapple. But I'm glad I persevered. You have a nice way with words PZ. A slightly older (and now retired) teacher salutes you. I'm looking forward to the next instalment.
Your taste in Pizza however, is the pits. ;-)
Ah, mass media reporting and science, what can one say? .....the jalapeno and pineapple of publishing!
Posted by: Ellie
|
August 22, 2009 9:38 PM
Ben Goldacre has covered this issue in depth on a number of occasions (with a UK bias). His latest blog post on "PR-reviewed science" can be found here:
http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/pr-reviewed-data/
I wonder how much we can blame the authors and how much is coming from the PR dept of their university? There have been some truly shocking examples of this sort of thing in the UK lately where the scientists in question have done nothing to cause the problem and have been doing their best to explain the truth, but no one listens - the story is too interesting by then for the truth to matter any more.
If what's written in the text books is sufficiently out of date as to need correcting, then the quote from the authors is harmless without the back-drop of hype from the press.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 22, 2009 9:43 PM
So do we get the phylogeny in interesting part #2?
I want to know about pigs, the only other mammals I can think of that are omnivorous enough to stomach a pineapple-and-jalapeno pizza.
Also, I'd have expected you to have a taste, as do I, for anchovies.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 9:46 PM
Also, I'd have expected you to have a taste, as do I, for anchovies.
...or squid.
yes, I've had BBQ squid on a pizza. damn tasty, actually.
has to be fresh, though.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 22, 2009 9:47 PM
Oh crap!
Darwin was kinda, sorta, maybe a little bit inaccurate about something he wrote.
Therefore, evolution is disproved.
Therefore, God is proven to exist.
And that God must be the God of the Bible.
And that God of the Bible must be the one worshiped by Christians.
And "Christians" must mean those who believe the Bible is literally true.
And that must mean Creationism is true!
So, a single study has wiped out my belief in evolution and atheism! That's some study.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 9:48 PM
oh and...
I want to know about pigs, the only other mammals I can think of that are omnivorous enough to stomach a pineapple-and-jalapeno pizza.
Well, pork is the Meat of Kings
;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 9:55 PM
Where I went to grad school, the local pub served a Hawaiian pizza. Ham, pineapple, shrimp, and onions IIRC. A little meecy micey (jalapeno) is also good. My problem with the Redhead is that she loves olives, and I detest them. So I spend a lot of time inspecting my slices before eating them...
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 22, 2009 9:57 PM
In Howell MI there is a pizza shop that makes a peanut butter pizza with any topping that you would like.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 9:58 PM
I spend a lot of time inspecting my slices before eating them...
which means of course, that she ends up getting to eat more slices of the pizza than you...
have you ever considered she only says she "loves" olives just so she can get more slices?
She's a devious one, I tells ya!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 22, 2009 10:05 PM
Thank you, Ich, for labelling that link clearly enough that I did not click it again. I would hate to be pork-rolled.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 22, 2009 10:08 PM
Piatto, a cafe in Adelaide, does a BLT pizza. The lettuce is put on after it's cooked, obviously. Sounds strange but is actually really nice.
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | August 22, 2009 10:09 PM
It's a trait of black-and-white thinking that the appendix is considered nothing but detrimental. If I had appendicitis I'd be thinking very carefully before rubber-stamping its removal. Actually, I may as well begin my research now!
This paper may allow us to see more 'shades of gray'. Popular understanding of nature, in this case the appendix, is not always helpful or accurate.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 10:10 PM
I would hate to be pork-rolled.
heh.
frankly, I think Weebl might be the most destructive personality on the web, AFAIC.
Some of those damn songs get stuck in my head for weeks!
still singing the Narwhal song...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 10:13 PM
Actually, she eats the same number of slices as I do, just with all the olives and "furry fish" (anchovies), so she does eat slightly more calories for that meal. At this point I know enough to shut up, before several vital organs are perforated by the Kninja Knitters, and the women of Pharangula get on my case.Posted by: Fil | August 22, 2009 10:18 PM
I must be the only Aussie I know who hates pineapple. Pizza, lets see...mozzarella, anchovies, black olives, small prawns (shrimp), sliced mushrooms, hot salami, onion and a sauce with lots of spicy peppers in it.
Looking, looking, nope, NO pineapple!
(I know this is all too much for some; Italian friends of mine have very spare pizzas) ...and yes, I have seen fresh squid rings used.
Someone needs to write the definitive paper on pizza toppings. Preferably not PZ.
Posted by: Carlie | August 22, 2009 10:22 PM
At this point I know enough to shut up, before several vital organs are perforated by the Kninja Knitters, and the women of Pharangula get on my case.
Over what? Nothing wrong with a difference of opinion over olives.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 22, 2009 10:47 PM
amphiox@77:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don't disagree with your position, mind you, just your argument. To claim it isn't possible that having no appendix is detrimental is to be unpersuasively arrogant.You have conjecture that having an appendix increases a person's risk of death, is what you have. Your evidence that having one increases risk of death is the same as the evidence that having a heart increases risk of death: it sometimes doesn't work and thereby causes death.
Rather, there has been no survival benefit quantified. That doesn't mean there isn't one. You're misunderstanding the issue as much as Dr. Parker. Being non-functional is NOT part of what makes it a vestigial organ.
You are overstating the case, and missing the science. It turns out the appendix is quite beneficial, in its own way. But that doesn't stop it from being a vestigial organ and, thereby, proof of both common descent and natural selection as a primary mechanism of evolution. It may in the end be detrimental, but I kinda doubt that just the fact that it sometimes causes infection or death makes it so.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 10:54 PM
You have conjecture that having an appendix increases a person's risk of death, is what you have.
wtf?
uh, there are REAMS of medical papers on how likely appendices are to become infected. It's because of how small and narrow the entrance to the pouch is.
you're attacking conjecture that simply isn't.
You are overstating the case, and missing the science.
not really, the negative aspects of appendicitis are all too well known. the supposed benefits are not nearly so well established. There was ONE paper published suggesting the idea that it acts as a refuge, and ONE paper looking at possible correlative evidence. That's it. This (the paper under discussion) is the very first paper to look at the actual phylogeny and comparative biology involved.
don't know why you're trying to come off as an authority on the subject, but you'd do better to phrase your opinions as that, instead of proclamations.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 22, 2009 10:56 PM
Fil wrote:
No, you're not. I'm not much of a fan either. I tolerate it if it's part of a ham & pineapple, but on any other kind of pizza it's an abomination. There's a reason Italy and Hawaii are so far apart.
My preferred pizza gets called different things in different places, but it has (IIRC) onion, ham, cheese, mushrooms, salami and pepperoni, and kalamata olives.
Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2009 10:56 PM
tmaxPA,
Of course it is, when such evidence would reasonably be expected were the claim true.
Posted by: Islander | August 22, 2009 11:28 PM
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Um... I would like to remind you of a huge reason we don't believe in god...
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 22, 2009 11:52 PM
Absence of positive evidence after searching is evidence of absence. If you dig up your garden looking for fairies, surely you can call it evidence of absence when you find nothing. You looked, it wasn't there, hence that is evidence of it not being there.Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 23, 2009 12:02 AM
Absinthe of evidence? Wonder what that tastes like?
Posted by: No BS | August 23, 2009 12:03 AM
Pikemann Urge ;
"... If I had appendicitis I'd be thinking very carefully before rubber-stamping its removal..."
Bullshit. You'd be doubled up in pain changing colors as fast as a squid. No thinking involved there. Just "Make the pain stop".
But Darwin on the other hand... Did not know about pizza... Therefore "Darwin was wrong". About pizza.
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 12:30 AM
The rates of appendicitis are documented medical facts, not conjecture.
The rates of death from appendicitis are documented medical facts, not conjecture.
The rates of female infertility resulting from peritonitis caused by appendiceal rupture (the end stage event of untreated appendicitis) are documented medical facts, not conjecture.
The longitudinal studies of post-appendectomy patients, over decades, showing no significant detrimental effects of any kind (with just a few equivocal and tiny associations, like the one with Crohn's) are documented medical facts, not conjecture.
The known existence of individuals born without any appendix, who live regular lifespans with no disadvantages relative to their appendix possessing neighbours, is a documented medical fact, not conjecture.
The possible survival benefit of repopulating normal gut flora, however, IS a conjecture that has NOT been established. (I suspect there probably is one, but the magnitude of this effect cannot be large, or else we would have noticed it already in safety studies of antibiotics, because every time you take an oral antibiotic for anything, be it strep throat or whatever, you devastate your normal intestinal flora)
And frankly, the repopulation of normal gut flora is something that can be readily accomplished by pretty much any segment of bowel that has a structure that provides a relatively sheltered environment for microbial biofilms, and our bowels are full of loops and folds and segments that can provide such shelter, pretty much everywhere along its length. If this is a function of the appendix, it is most definitely one for which we have multiple redundancy.
It was never my intent to imply that the appendix is vestigial because it is detrimental, or that it cannot have any function because it is vestigial. Function, detriment, and vestigial status are three separate and independent issues.
The appendix is a vestigial organ because of its evolutionary history. It probably retains some residual secondary function. It may even have been exapted for a new function. It is also significantly detrimental. No reasonable person can look at the evidence we currently have at hand and not conclude that the balance of benefit versus detriment is heavily, heavily weighted towards the detriment side.
Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords
|
August 23, 2009 12:34 AM
Aristotle completely sucked as well, so why not dis him as well?
Why include such stupid wanking as they did? Don't they let sensible friends have a look before they drop their pants in print like that?
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 12:37 AM
#105:
The difference between the appendix and the heart is this: if you are born without a heart, or had your heart surgically removed, you would die FASTER than you would if you had even the most severe heart attack. If you are born without an appendix or had your appendix surgically removed, nothing much happens to you.
Posted by: tmaxPA | August 23, 2009 12:38 AM
Okay, since you want to make this a debate:
Isn't what? The question isn't 'how likely the appendix is to become infected', it is how 'likely it is to become infected' in comparison to what?
You're proposing facts which simply aren't. There is no evidence whatsoever that a human can be born without an appendix and survive.
And so you think arguing against the facts which establish that benefit makes sense? What are you, a religionist?
Why, to annoy you, of course. :-)
My opinions are proclamations: you can refute them, or you can whine. So far they have been valid, and you have not refuted them, so you are simply whining. My question is: what are you whining ABOUT?
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 12:42 AM
"There is no evidence whatsoever that a human can be born without an appendix and survive"
Um, there are people walking around right now who were born with no appendix. This fact has been known since the ancient greeks started dissecting human cadavers. These people survive just fine.
If that doesn't count as evidence, then your definition of "evidence" is not the same as mine.
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 12:48 AM
"the facts which establish that benefit"
Also, no.
What we have is evidence for a possible function. The benefit construed by this possible function, if any, and the magnitude of this benefit, has not yet been established.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 23, 2009 12:51 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever that a human can be born without an appendix and survive.
wtf does that even mean?
which establish that benefit
that's my point, only two papers have actually even discussed the issue in the peer reviewed lit, and the only one to look at any data at all was merely correlational.
IOW, there is no establishment of benefit.
of what "facts" are you speaking?
Why, to annoy you, of course. :-)
it rather seems that your entire purpose here on Pharyngula has been to annoy people, AFAICT.
Was there some other purpose, pray tell?
Posted by: Fil | August 23, 2009 12:54 AM
@PhoenixWoman
"Absinthe of evidence? Wonder what that tastes like?"
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder...
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | August 23, 2009 1:33 AM
I hope that amphiox and tmaxPA are here for the next installment. I have some more specific points about the appendix worth raising. The two of you should provide an interesting exchange on the matter and prompt further contemplation for those without polarized views.
A side note: we know atoms exist. But we really don't have as good a model as we'd like. We don't know gravity as much as we would like, either. In nature there are more matters of degree than absolutes.
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 1:36 AM
amphiox
Can you give me a reference?Of note. Once upon a time it was considered acceptable even good practice to prophylactically remove the appendix (a normal appendix) during abdominal surgical procedures unrelated to a ruptured appendix. This is not the case presently. I know of know surgical society that advises such practice. My wife, a practicing Ob/Gyn doc, concurs.
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 1:39 AM
That should have read: I know of no surgical society ...
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 1:48 AM
Pikemann Urge
I disagree. The atom is itself a model. Existence is a weird concept outside of mathematics. IMO the validity of the model is all that is important.Though you can try to change my mind.
Posted by: efrique | August 23, 2009 2:05 AM
Indeed, he explicitly says not every feature is adaptation, for example in his discussion of correlation between features.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
August 23, 2009 8:46 AM
What says, "I disagree. The atom is itself a model. Existence is a weird concept outside of mathematics. IMO the validity of the model is all that is important. "
Actually, physics is predicated on the supposition that there is some underlying physical reality--that there is some existent entity that underlies the collection of perceptions we summarize under our atomic model. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics goes through some rather remarkable mental and metaphysical gymnastics to preserve this concept even as it precludes our ability to directly perceive that reality. The existence of physical reality is the rationale whereby we justify our preference for a unified description of the physical world over a disjointed, piecemeal explanation. As such it is quite important to our understanding of physics.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 8:51 AM
Try explaining that to mass spectrometer, which measures the masses of atoms and molecules.Posted by: Ellie
|
August 23, 2009 10:32 AM
@#110 Nah, all it proves is the fairies are better at hiding than you are at finding them.
More seriously though, I have always believed very strongly in "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence", but we use absence of a positive effect as proof that drugs don't work in clinical trials all the time. I think I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more...
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 2:05 PM
#122:
It is no longer considered ethical to perform prophylactic removal of healthy organs without informed consent. The fact that appendices are no longer removed routinely during abdominal surgery has everything to do with the advance of medical ethics over the years, and nothing to do with the utility of keeping an appendix.
Visit Dr. Schwab's blog (link in comment #35) and check Orac's post (#2). All your questions are answered there more cogently by a pair of general surgeons than I can.
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 2:29 PM
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Actually, it is. If you make the effort to look for the evidence and you don't find it, that is an indication that it wasn't there. This statement only applies to cases where one has not yet made the effort to look for the evidence.
It is not confirmation of absence, but it most certainly is, provisionally, evidence of absence.
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 2:37 PM
Amphiox
I will check that blog out and get back to you. I hope you are pointing to peer reviewed articles or I will be disappointed.
The practice is not considered acceptable with or without informed consent.Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 3:19 PM
Nerd of Redhead #127
It measures parameters used in the model we call the electron. We are modeling something that exists but that is different from saying that the thing as modeled exists.a_ray_in_dilbert_space #126
I think you have misinterpreted the interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation simply tries to reconcile a new model (quantum mechanics with its lack of commutation of observables and state collapse upon measurements) with an old model (classical mechanics) and show that the new model is consistent despite objections to its consistency that had arisen. It does not conclude that there is some underlying physical reality which is not directly perceivable by us or that the features of the new model result from such inaccessibility.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 3:28 PM
Let's see, the mass spec. doesn't measure the electron, except as part of the whole atom. And the principal of the mass spec., in it's many forms, presumes the atom is a particle with mass. Seems to work very reliably. No magic or QM needed.Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 3:45 PM
amphiox
I went to Schwab's blog (following his link provided above) and did not find a link in comment 35 to a peer reviewed article ... nor any link at all. I quickly scanned nearby comments without finding said link. Maybe you could help me - unconvinced - out a bit.
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 3:51 PM
Nerd of Redhead #133
I simply could not understand your last post.
Posted by: Teliria | August 23, 2009 3:53 PM
Amphiox: "The fact that appendices are no longer removed routinely during abdominal surgery has everything to do with the advance of medical ethics over the years, and nothing to do with the utility of keeping an appendix."
_____
I would not agree the it has 'everything' to do with ethics. A large part of it is that once the laprascopic procedure became the norm, the cost/benefit analysis changed.
It used to be that a second (non-laproscopic) surgery was more risky than prophylactic removal during another surgery. Now, with the reduction in risk of the surgery itself, the risk of surgery does not outweigh the potential benefit of the organ.
Additionally, if there was solid evidence that prophylactically removing the organ would significantly lower risk, it would not be considered medically unethical to do it, as long as the patient was informed prior to the surgery that this could be done (along with the why) and they gave their informed consent.
The only way it is unethical to do so is if removing an otherwise healthy piece of the human body does not constitute a significant risk improvement and/or if it is done without the patients consent.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 3:59 PM
Then you don't understand the difference between an electron, where the wave properties dominate, and an atom (nucleus plus electrons) where the particle properties dominate.Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 4:54 PM
Nerd of Redhead #137
What are you responding to? Certainly nothing that I posted.
FYI I am a physicist and physician. You might want to take this into account in your posts addressed to me.
Posted by: John Marley | August 23, 2009 7:41 PM
@ What (#138)
Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. Especially from behind a pseudonym.
I'm not calling you a liar, but don't expect anyone to "take [that]into account in your posts addressed to [you]."
Posted by: SC, OM | August 23, 2009 7:58 PM
Huh. Not saying this is wrong, but a search for "incidental appendectomy" in pubmed gives me a somewhat different impression. Totally possible that I'm missing something...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 8:01 PM
I am a chemist with 30+ years experience, and used to teach general chemistry, which included atomic structure. Keep that in mind...Posted by: Tito | August 23, 2009 8:25 PM
I believe that the recommendation against "incidental appendectomy" (appendectomy done on a normal appendix at the time of other surgery) has been made not because of some undiscovered possible benefit of having an intact appendix. The recommendation was made because removal of the appendix does quantifiably increase the possible complication rate - localized abscess from appendiceal stump blow out for example.
Also - we surgeons tend to be a fairly conservative lot (in terms of decision making, not necessarily politics) and removing the appendix at the time of other surgery falls into the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" category.
My own pet conjecture is that the appendix might be useful in the early post natal period for the newborn - maybe churning out intraluminal antibodies during that period of time in which the colon is getting colonized with gut flora for the first time. Total and absolute conjecture.
Posted by: atomjack | August 23, 2009 8:47 PM
Tito, I have a question- does meconium not have bacteria in it? My background is physics, so please excuse the ignorance.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 23, 2009 8:53 PM
Yes, that's what I thought (and ewww). I'm curious, though: How strong is this recommendation? Does it depend on the nature of the surgery? On the individual case? I assumed it was done primarily in cases in which the nature of the surgery the patient was undergoing would potentially make a later appendectomy more difficult, but I may be pulling this out of the air, and this wouldn't be the same as "routinely." It seems like the risk of complications in the current surgery would have to be weighed against the reduction of risk for, and the risks associated with, a future surgery.
It seemed from the pubmed articles that it was still being done in gynecological surgeries. Am I reading that incorrectly?
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 8:57 PM
Nerd of Redhead
I will! Now maybe you can explain how this statement, which happens to be a gross overstatement, is an appropriate response to anything that I wrote:Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 9:02 PM
SC #144
My wife, an ObGyn doc, assures me that it is not considered an acceptable practice.Posted by: sooty | August 23, 2009 9:03 PM
SC, GTFO you libertarian ideologue scumbag. nobody likes you, you old spiteful hardliner toadstool. continue posting here and we will rip you a new crap aperture. you have been warned.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:04 PM
What, explain your statement.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 23, 2009 9:06 PM
OK, one (well, a few) more:
I've done a little searching, and have been unable to find information on risk factors for developing appendicitis. Is it completely random? Are there genetic factors? Are certain conditions (including some of those for which people might be having abdominal surgery) associated with a higher risk for appendicitis? And do some surgeries themselves increase the riskiness of future appendectomies?
Thanks.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:06 PM
Ack, What, that is explain your statement that the atom is only a model. To me, it is a real particle. Show your evidence, because the smell of woo is on the model statement.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 23, 2009 9:12 PM
Can you point me to something beyond the anecdotal?
(PS to PZ: I've now been physically threatened by this insane person. I don't know what the next step is, but I think something should be done at this point.)
Posted by: Irenicus | August 23, 2009 9:23 PM
Then you don't understand the relevant physics, your earlier arrogant condescension notwithstanding. There are electrons, there is a nucleus. Then there's lots of empty space. The idea of a spherical atom, or even an atom of any shape, is necessarily only a model. How accurate is this model depends a variety of factors relevant to the problem at hand.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:25 PM
Yes, and what does this have to do with the measurement of the mass of the atom? Until you explain, you have nothing. Cite the literature.Posted by: sooty | August 23, 2009 9:26 PM
Relax, libertarian troll, I meant "we" as in the posters on this site, and I meant "new crap aperture" only figuratively. No physical threats are being made, cease exaggerating.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 23, 2009 9:31 PM
Sooty, take your hatred and yourself and stick them both where the sun don't shine.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 23, 2009 9:32 PM
No literature is necessary, as what we're talking about doesn't go beyond totally common knowledge.I did not read through the thread and did not realize you were talking about weighing atoms. In that problem, you can regard an atom as a mere collection of fundamental particles, and you don't have to think of an atom as a sphere or a particle of any shape.
But that's merely semantic. I could define whatever collection of stuff I like as a particle. That doesn't mean it makes sense to claim that such semantic entities are "real".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:37 PM
Sooty, you are not yet allowed to presume the royal "we" for Pharyngula. You see the OM after SC's moniker? That means she is esteemed by her peers. She could presume the "we". Notice your lack of such an honor? That means you aren't esteemed, and at the moment, you are just an ignorant troll. Time to back up and reassess yourself if you want to keep posting here. I suggest a two or three day vacation, then come back with a more open mind, and far, far less of an attitude.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 9:40 PM
Dear Sooty,
I hope you are not the same Sooty bear that I used to watch on the Telly with Sweep, because I do not then recall you being so angry and full of hate when you were a glove puppet. Not that I have any problem with those emotions. As a Bible-believing Christian I am usually angry and full of hate myself, just like the God whom I love.
However I do object to you saying "we" to mean "me" (one of the posters on this blog) when you are having one of your little black spews. I know it only SOUNDED like you were threatening SC, but it sounded like you WERE threatening SC, and in court it might even sound as if you DID threaten SC. And A JUDGE might not like the sound of that.
Perhaps you should fuck off if this blog gets you so bitter and twisted?
Smoggy
Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 9:40 PM
#136, #142: Agreed. I was oversimplifying regarding the ethics issue in my previous post, for the sake of brevity. It wasn't that long ago that the "paternalistic" model of patient-physician relationships still held sway, and physicians often made decisions for their patients "for the best", including removal of a healthy appendix during laparotomy for another condition.
#116, #122:
Here are two case reports (among many others) describing the congenital absence or agenesis of an appendix, discovered in an otherwise healthy adult.
Pediatr Med Chir. 2003 Sep-Oct;25(5):370-2.
West Afr J Med. 1994 Jan-Mar;13(1):66.
I must admit that I just went looking for the longitudinal study on long-term outcome of appendectomy conducted by the Mayo Clinic mentioned by Dr. Schwab in his blog post (linked in post #35 here) and I couldn't find it. Probably I'm using the wrong search terms. It might be related to this reference:
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Aug;205(2):298-306. Epub 2007 Jun 27.
Another reference regarding incidental appendectomy:
Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998;6(1):30-7
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 23, 2009 9:41 PM
sooty,
I haven't seen a single person agree with you yet. SC, OM is well liked here, as evidenced by her Molly. I suggest you fuck off.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:45 PM
The atom is real, not just a model, since it can be weighed. Even the electron has been "weighed", but I will acknowledge the wave behavior of electrons. But, once the electrons are tied to a nucleus, they are tied into certain behaviors which result in discrete atoms, with size, mass, etc. The atom is not necessarily a fuzzy QM dominated particle.Posted by: amphiox | August 23, 2009 9:50 PM
Interestingly, normal colonic flora in herbivorous animals play an important role in digestion. Thus, the idea that the appendix plays an important function in maintaining the normal gut flora isn't actually that far, conceptually, from the old idea that it was once a part of an enlarged cecum necessary in herbivores for the processing of plant material.
And the shrunken appendix in humans remains clearly vestigial in both cases.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 23, 2009 9:53 PM
I can weigh a stack of books. That doesn't mean a stack of books is a real particle.
In some problems, it's sensible to consider atoms as real spherical particles. That's the case when for instance one doesn't go beyond classical electrodynamics.
In other problems (generally smaller-scale problems when quantum effects become more important), atoms begin to look less and less real. At a deep enough level (for instance, in fundamental particle physics), you can't make any progress whatsoever by viewing atoms as real particles. Vibrating strings might turn out to be quarks, electrons, neutrinos etc., but never whole "atoms".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 9:55 PM
Irenicus, sophistry until you cite your sources. I have MS output. What do you have?
Posted by: Rorschach | August 23, 2009 9:59 PM
NoR @ 137,
Well, that depends on what you are doing with it, doesnt it.And define "dominate" in this context.
As to "sooty", I see a well-deserved ban coming.
And just a quick note on the appendix, while it's not taken out during other surgery, it still is taken out even if it is found to be normal intraoperatively after a diagnosis of appendicitis was made clinically.The natural course of appendicitis by the way is 30% perforation, 70% just resolve with antibiotics.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 23, 2009 10:02 PM
Everything I said is common knowledge and doesn't require "citations". If you lack confidence in your knowledge of utterly basic physics, see Wikipedia or some undergraduate or high school textbook.
Posted by: Tito | August 23, 2009 10:14 PM
Meconium (and indeed the entire newborn) is essentially sterile until born - no bacteria.
The acquisition of the little critters begins right away and it doesn't take all that long. Every parent who changes the diapers knows there is that moment when you can say: "HEY! This shit stinks!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 23, 2009 10:21 PM
Irenicus, I have a PhD in chemistry with 30+ years experience in the field. Your lack of citations tells me all I need to know.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 23, 2009 10:42 PM
Who is this "sooty" person? It hasn't posted here before, yet it thinks it now speaks with the voice of the readership here?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 23, 2009 10:52 PM
Sooty is a small boy with a broom stuck halfway up the blog's chimney. He's making a loud noise to attract attention but all the ruckus is doing is causing shit to rain down upon his head. I predict that lighting a fire under him should bring about an attitude change.
Posted by: What | August 23, 2009 11:21 PM
Nerd of Redhead
What we do in science can be described as the observation of systems, the modeling of those systems, and the making of predictions based upon those models. One can not ascribe realness to those systems or their component model parts in the sense that you seem to want. One can only distinguish between models that predict well and those that do not.
No citations are needed. The history of physics should suffice. For example, and following your lead, the model of atoms has changed over the years and can be expected to continue to change. Which these past and present models is real? The present one? What about the future models?
We are modeling something that exists but that is different from saying that the thing as modeled exists.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 23, 2009 11:31 PM
well
Sooty is obviously a dumb ass or a troll... I mean both.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 24, 2009 6:58 AM
Came a bit out of nowhere, too, given thread context. Personal axe to grind maybe ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 24, 2009 7:41 AM
What, Irenicus, I know all about science. I have a PhD in chemistry and 30+ years experience, including teaching introduction to chemistry that included atomic theory. I know all about modeling. I can cite chapter and verse of atomic orbitals, their order of filling, shapes, properties, etc. But, the atom is not a model, it is a particle with certain properties, like a charge to mass ratio that can be measured by a mass spectrometer. It has volume which can also be measured. This information is available on a good Periodic Table of the Elements. The atom exists by any reasonable definition. If it is not a particle, but just a figment of my imagination, cite the source for that. Otherwise, it remains a particle with existence. Just because we use models to describe their structure and behavior doesn't make atoms unreal. That has been my point. What is yours?
Posted by: Andrea M | August 24, 2009 9:57 AM
Dara O'Briain talking about god, evolution and the appendix (minute 4.40 onwards)
http://www.youtube.com/v/VIaV8swc-fo&hl=en&fs=1&
Posted by: Irenicus | August 24, 2009 10:44 AM
Your experience in chemistry is entirely irrelevant. I accused you of lacking knowledge of basic physics, not chemistry. You can measure the charge to mass ratio of ANY particle with charge and mass. That's how physicists have been making measurements on fundamental particles for the last century. I don't care about your qualifications: These are laughable, high school kid arguments. The "volume" of an atom is necessarily inexact. It's utterly basic knowledge that the radius of an atom is only an average. Electrons aren't located in definite places, therefore an atom doesn't have a definite radius. Therefore, also, it doesn't have a definite volume. As I said, it depends on what perspective you're taking. From the perspective of superstring theory, it isn't helpful at all (as far as I know) to regard atoms as real objects. What's real are the fundamental particles, and atoms are seen as fuzzy bound states of those particles. My point is that your point is a stupid point. The only strict definition of an atom you can give happens to be totally useless in science. Conversely, the common definition is extremely fuzzy in many circumstances. Convenient in chemistry, but not in fundamental particle physics.Posted by: What | August 24, 2009 11:50 AM
Nerd of Redhead
I am sorry that I have been unable to convince you.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 24, 2009 11:58 AM
This strikes me as analogous to the levels-of-organization principle of biology. Reductionism drives the level of explanation ever downward: organ function is explained by the tissues and cells of which the organ is composed; cell function is explained by the actions of the organelles and molecules of which the cell is constructed, etc. But working back up the hierarchy is also necessary: cells have "emergent" properties that depend on the organization of their component organelles and molecules; whole organs do things that couldn't be predicted from knowledge of their cell-types, etc.
To get back on-topic, an immunologist interested in the function of gut-associated lymphoid tissues does not necessarily care whether the lymphocytes under study were once part of a vermiform appendix or a colon or an ileum, but to a surgeon, the existence of these different organs is the important point and their cell-types are irrelevant.
Can we agree that, of course the existence of atoms is more-or-less irrelevant to the study of by-definition-subatomic fundamental particles? And that nevertheless, the existence of certain "fuzzy bound states" of such particles (i.e. atoms), which have interesting emergent properties (i.e. chemistry) is at least as reasonable and certain as the existence of higher-order bound states of the putative atoms (i.e. molecules)? Etc.?
Posted by: Heather F. Smith | August 24, 2009 12:50 PM
Hi PZ, Thanks for your commentary on this article. I always enjoy your website and value its contribution to (lively) scientific commentary and debate.
If I may, I'd like to offer some clarification:
I think there is a misunderstanding here as to our interpretations of the initial function of the appendix. You are absolutely correct that “vestigial†organs may still perform functions other than their original function (exaptations). However, we aren’t arguing that the appendix is an exaptation. The immunological function served by the appendix in mammals today may very well be the selective force driving the initial evolution of the appendix. A similar biofilm is present in the walls of the proximal large bowel in the frog, the outgroup to the mammalian clade included in this study, suggesting that the immunological function of this portion of the large intestine has been present in vertebrate evolution since before the origin of mammals. This outgroup also possesses no appendix. The purpose of including an outgroup was to determine the polarity of both appendix presence/absence (absence is symplesiomorphic for mammals) and proximal large bowel biofilm presence/absence (presence is apparently symplesiomorphic for mammals, as indicated by the frog). Thus, the argument is not that the appendix is a reduced, digestive organ, but that it initially evolved as an appendage on the digestive tract as a means to house commensal bacteria. Its presence in the digestive tract facilitates its inoculation of beneficial bacteria into the digestive tract, but doesn’t make it a primarily digestive organ. If housing beneficial bacteria was its initial function, and it still carries out that function in humans (which is the argument), then it is not vestigial nor an exaptation.
Monotremes possess tiny appendix-like structures (the embryological and immunological data are not sufficient to determine whether they are true appendices), suggesting that some form of cecal appendage was present around the time of the origin of mammals. This appendix is far too small to serve any digestive function. Darwin noted that the human appendix is smaller than that of orangutans; however, he did not have the advantage of knowing that it is actually substantially larger than what are likely the earliest appearing cecal appendices (in monotremes and marsupials- the outgroups to placental mammals) and a similar size to those of several other primate species. Looking across a mammalian phylogeny, we see that the appendix initially increased in size but has subsequently fluctuated several times, as is often the case in evolution.
Please rest assured that I have never witnessed anyone on our team cackling gleefully about science. There is no way Darwin could have known about the immunological functions of the appendix or the fact that this trait characterizes the proximal large bowel of even species without a cecal appendix. As you correctly assess, the media has taken the references to Darwin and run amok with them in ways that no good evolutionary biologist could condone. It’s always possible that future additional evidence could shed more light on this question and cause as to reevaluate these conclusions. We’re genuinely interested in an accurate understanding of how the appendix evolved, much more so than “trying to pick a fight with a dead manâ€.
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | August 24, 2009 1:29 PM
Lady of my acquaintance says one of her children was born without an appendendix (I said,"Is that bad?). Don't remember if it was the asme child or another who had the wrong number of toes. Admission clerk at a Houston hospital said, " Are you from Port Arthur?" (major industrial pollution area.) She is.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 24, 2009 2:47 PM
As I see it, there are two reasons we might call an entity real:(a) The entity plays a useful explanatory/causal role. So, for instance, we say that the chair you're sitting in is real, or that the Moon is real, or even that "jealousy" is real. All these things happen to be somewhat fuzzy, yet in everyday speech, or even most kinds of scientific discourse, I doubt we'd question that they're real.
(b) We think the entity maps in some precise way onto "the real world" (which I think most posters on Pharyngula, being hard- nosed realists, would have to accept). This precludes all ambiguous ("fuzzy") concepts from being real.
Hence when we ask whether electrons or atoms are real, we're presumably wondering about something over and above whether these entities have useful explanatory role in certain theories. (Of course they do -- that goes without saying.) We want to know whether they EXIST.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 24, 2009 3:20 PM
Dr. Smith @ 180,
That was a beautiful explication of your position. (And I agree that if the mass media folks reporting on your paper had actually read it, they'd see virtually nothing about "haha, Darwin was wrong." But, of course, they rarely do.)
Have you any plans to directly test your hypothesis of the appendix's role in recovering from gut infections? I would think it'd be fairly straightforward to dose a population of appendectomized rabbits with E. coli or something, to see if their gut flora take an unusually long time to recover.
Posted by: Wallace Turner | August 24, 2009 3:45 PM
This has got me pondering something; are the brains of creationists becoming vestigial organs?
Posted by: SC, OM | August 24, 2009 9:57 PM
Re existence, I feel compelled to turn once again to Sokal
http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/bielefeld_final_rev.pdf
(Section 3.2)
Not positive it's relevant, but it seems so to me (even if not everyone agrees).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 24, 2009 10:08 PM
Sorry Irenicus, What, I see both of you as fuzzy thinking woomeisters. And supercilious snobs on top of being woomeisters. I'll leave you to your fuzzy world and fuzzy thinking. I still have a job to do with real atoms. Gee, they behave like they are real objects.
Posted by: amphiox | August 24, 2009 11:10 PM
"This has got me pondering something; are the brains of creationists becoming vestigial organs?"
Some of them are in the process of being exapted for compartmentalization.
Posted by: amphiox | August 24, 2009 11:25 PM
Re: #180
Now I'm really curious regarding future investigations into the survival benefit of commensal gut flora, and quantification of rate of repopulation relative to appendix size, cause of initial depletion, etc.
And I wonder if monotremes get appendicitis, with their little appendices.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 25, 2009 4:19 AM
@ 176,
I am somewhat surprised to see this discussion about conceptual definitions of physical entities.
Nerd seems to struggle to comprehend that you seem to be coming from a particle physics, more flexible and conceptual approach to atoms and electrons, and seems a bit fixated on the good ol' Bohr model.
It's useful as a didactic tool I guess.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 4:22 AM
All stated without supporting argument, notice.Since you're kind enough to state your opinion of me, the only polite thing to do is reciprocate. PhDs in science are general indicators of knowledge and competence, although there are always exceptions. You appear to be one of the exceptions. You come off as abysmally stupid, and judging from your posts you really don't seem to know very much science. You're clearly insecure about this, as is evinced by the desperation of your uncalled-for harping on about qualifications, and the hysteria with which you resort to totally unnecessary insults in conversation that was intended to be scientific.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 4:24 AM
Yes, he's just a stupid ignoramus, who seems to understand little about atoms beyond high school physical chemistry.Posted by: Rorschach | August 25, 2009 4:41 AM
@ 191,
Nerd is a nice guy and valued commenter here, but he sometimes misses the bus.
I can live with that, and wouldnt call him stupid.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 25, 2009 6:47 AM
Irenicus,
I'm curious about your response to Sven's comment @ #178 and the piece I linked to @ #185. Also, I may be misreading you, but it seems @ #182 as though you're suggesting that chairs and the moon, like electrons, are not real in your strict scientific sense. If so, I'm a bit confused as to what entities you consider to exist scientifically.
Thanks.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 25, 2009 7:15 AM
If I wasnt ignoring SC's comments I would point out that her confusion seems rather confusing to me, since I thought Irenicus made his point pretty clearly, and that he said no such thing(in regards to chairs and the moon).
I think this goes back to Nerd's argument of "if I can weigh an atom,it has to be real and not just a model" ,which is obviously a bit problematic.
I dont see a problem with Irenicus's argument to be honest.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 25, 2009 7:21 AM
Irenicus, you aren't as smart as you think you are. The fact that you think you are smarter than everyone else is proof of that. Loosing the attitude would help.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 25, 2009 7:23 AM
Excuse me, but I asked Irenicus for a response to a comment and a short article and for clarification. I assume Irenicus is capable of providing these, and your muddled interjections contribute nothing to the discussion.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 25, 2009 7:25 AM
*Sigh*
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 7:31 AM
We think the entity maps in some precise way onto "the real world" (which I think most posters on Pharyngula, being hard- nosed realists, would have to accept). This precludes all ambiguous ("fuzzy") concepts from being real. - Irenicus
I think this is the most bizarre use of "real" I've ever come across! It would make most of the things we regard as "real" in everyday life - chairs, babies, governments, wars, books, stones... unreal. I don't think you'll find many "hard-nosed realists", here or elsewhere, agreeing with you on this.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 25, 2009 7:36 AM
Amen Brother.Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 9:32 AM
SC,
Maybe fundamental particles or strings postulated by superstring theory -- maybe the space-time manifold. Possibly abstract "algorithms" like natural selection, and even some sorts of morality, can be said to have real existence, since it's possible there's some kind of precise map from the physical world to elements in some sensible algorithmic definition of these concepts. Yes, they would all be real in my first sense of real, which we use all the time, and which I think very frequently appears in scientific discourse.The point I'm making is that if a concept is ambiguous ("fuzzy"), it cannot possibly be realized in the physical world, because we don't actually know what it means. So it seems sensible to say that objects like tables and governments are in one sense theoretical entities, and are in fact not real.
View a table through the lens of modern science and my claim should not be hard to digest. It turns out that a "table" is really mostly empty space, and its continuity is an illusion. Moreover, quantum mechanics tells us that the tiny particles that are present "in the table" are actually very weird things which are sort of like particles and sort of like waves. From this perspective, it shouldn't be hard to accept that tables are theoretical entities that just happen to be very convenient in macroscopic human life.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 9:46 AM
It's an interesting article. I remember reading it a number of years back. I mostly agree with Sokal, though I do have some qualms.For instance, he makes the point that until we have a theory of everything, we can't possibly know what is "really real" -- therefore, he says, there's little point in worrying about it.
I think the problem with this is that without a notion of "really real", we cannot compare concepts in terms of how well we think they approximate to what's "really real". So, for instance, surely you will grant that the concepts of "government" and "substitute teacher" are far more abstract and less "really real" than electrons and protons.
Also, as far as I remember, Sokal doesn't say much about ambiguity. If something is ambiguous, we don't know what it means. Mathematical definitions are precise and not open to ambiguity, whereas everyday speech is more sloppy. For this reason I think it's plausible to assume that, in the strict sense of real, an entity cannot be real unless it is defined mathematically (or maybe using some kind of very precise logic).
Posted by: Irencisu | August 25, 2009 9:48 AM
Sorry, not all of #199 was addressed to SC. Some of it was directed at Knockgoats, beginning from when I quoted him.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 9:49 AM
The point I'm making is that if a concept is ambiguous ("fuzzy"), it cannot possibly be realized in the physical world, because we don't actually know what it means. - Irenicus
Yes we do. There is no reason whatever that a concept has to have a precise definition for us to understand it. That's not how natural language works; rather, it allows us to specify greater precision when and where we need to.
So it seems sensible to say that objects like tables and governments are in one sense theoretical entities, and are in fact not real.
No, it seems ludicrously pedantic.
It turns out that a "table" is really mostly empty space, and its continuity is an illusion.
No, it isn't. What we mean by continuity is, like anything in natural language, context-dependent. In the context of everyday life, a table is continuous.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 25, 2009 9:53 AM
Ultrareductionism. Speaking as a macroscopic human, the continuity of a table is not an "illusion," it is rather its most salient (emergent) property. It is real at the appropriate level of reality for a macroscopic human (as I am, if anything, even more ambiguous and fuzzy than the table, since I continually swap out, add, and delete my constituent atoms and molecules, yet I really* must insist on my existence). If I was a positron or a particle physicist, I suppose I might see things differently.
*swidt?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 25, 2009 9:59 AM
If a chair doesn't exist because it is fuzzy (Compton wavelength?), then neither does Irenicus. Irenicus, you should now stop posting and poof into your fuzzy non-existence. Your continued posting is refutation of your idea.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 10:03 AM
surely you will grant that the concepts of "government" and "substitute teacher" are far more abstract and less "really real" than electrons and protons. - Irenicus
No.
If something is ambiguous, we don't know what it means.
If you mean ambiguous in the sense of fuzzy, this is just wrong.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 10:07 AM
That's because natural language is concerned with convenience in everyday life, as opposed to what's "really out there". I don't understand how I'm being pedantic, since I already made clear the distinction between the everyday meaning of real and the strict, "ultra-reductionist" meaning of real. I certainly don't think tables are continuous by the everyday meaning, any more than I think a swarm of people in a football stadium is continuous. But who cares. Everyday language is just so uncertain.Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 10:09 AM
Actually, at the moment I'm working on a paper which takes the opposite view. I'm not going to talk about it though, since I know this blog is very popular and I don't want to be scooped.Posted by: s.k.graham | August 25, 2009 12:59 PM
@#54 Anton Mates,
Hey Thanks! Goes to show I should sit down and read Darwin myself some day. I had no idea that Darwin allowed for any sort Larmarckian inheritance. But I suppose as he did not know any mechanism for inheritance, Larmarckianism would still be plausible -- but not necessary.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 1:11 PM
I certainly don't think tables are continuous by the everyday meaning, any more than I think a swarm of people in a football stadium is continuous. But who cares.
You, apparently.
Everyday language is just so uncertain. - Irenicus
So, you won't be using it any more, I guess? After all, it's all fuzzy, so according to you we can't understand it, so you haven't actually said anything coherent, have you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 25, 2009 1:13 PM
If a table is mostly empty space, with what the words imply, then one would expect the keyboard to be continually dropping through it. But the keyboard remains on the table, and won't pass through no matter how had they keyboard is pounded. Almost like both the table and keyboard, for practical purposes, can be considered solid objects. Unless, of course, they are both spherical contructs in the mind of a physicist...
Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 1:46 PM
I suggest you acquire some reading comprehension. All along I've been very clear that I think my first, "fuzzy" sense of real is extremely convenient, and even essential for everyday life. The reason that doesn't happen is a little something called electromagnetism. I really should not have to spell this out to someone who claims to "know all about science".Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 2:06 PM
All along I've been very clear that I think my first, "fuzzy" sense of real is extremely convenient, and even essential for everyday life. Irenicus
No, you haven't. You first used the word "real" @156:
you can regard an atom as a mere collection of fundamental particles, and you don't have to think of an atom as a sphere or a particle of any shape.
I could define whatever collection of stuff I like as a particle. That doesn't mean it makes sense to claim that such semantic entities are "real".
So here you are denying that atoms are real, without any equivocation. It wasn't until #181, several of your posts later, that you distinguished two senses of "real".
Then at #199 you said:
if a concept is ambiguous ("fuzzy"), it cannot possibly be realized in the physical world, because we don't actually know what it means. - Irenicus
So here you are clearly denying that we can know what a concept means (actually we generally say words and sentences rather than concepts "mean", but let that go) if it is fuzzy - as pretty much all natural language terms or concepts are. If we can't know what these terms or concepts mean, clearly we can't understand anything couched in terms of them. Therefore, according to your own statements, you can't have said anything coherent.
And now I'll leave you to your pointless sophistry.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 25, 2009 2:42 PM
Yes, and I explained why I was doing that. Atoms obviously have a useful explanatory role, therefore they TRIVIALLY satisfy definition (a) of real. I think in the context of the earlier discussion, definition (b) was obviously most appropriate, since no sane person would deny that they satisfy (a). Context is everything. I was talking about "meaning" in the context of mappings between "the real world" and concepts. If a concept is ambiguous, then there cannot be a one-one mapping between that concept and the real world. In other words, we don't know precisely which stuff in the real world to identify with the concept.Atoms are a decent example. Do we include forces of interaction (or equivalently, gauge bosons) as part of the atom? If you say yes, you face the absurdity that atoms can have potentially infinite volume. If you say no, then an unbound "soup" of electrons, protons and neutrons would have to count as an atom, and that seems silly and is totally contrary to the way the word "atom" is used.
The solution is just to accept that atoms aren't real in sense (b). They're real in sense (a) because they're highly convenient theoretical entities. Very important entities to a chemist; less so to a string theorist.
Posted by: windy | August 25, 2009 6:02 PM
Where do you think tables come from?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 25, 2009 10:37 PM
Yawn, the wooist troll is still full of woo. Boring fool to think we are interested in his sophistry.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 26, 2009 2:32 AM
Woo? Troll? Sophistry? I don't see what I could possibly have said that in any way justifies that description. Face it: you're just an insecure dickhead who's done nothing in this thread but post ignorant stupidity, schoolboy howlers, and unprovoked insults.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 26, 2009 2:48 AM
Irenicus,
I think people are having a general problem with comprehending where you are coming from, which seems to be a rather very theoretical, conceptual, standpoint on what the world is made of and whether a table is really a table.
I guess it's hard to be a string theorist or particle physicist without being able to see things in an "ultra-reductionist" way.I find it rather interesting to try and think about these things in this way, to be honest.
The woo and troll labels are uncalled for.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 8:48 AM
[Sorry - busy week]
Perhaps you should read it again, with more care this time.
With what do you agree, exactly?
That's a gross simplification:
***
Page 13.
So all that's real (potentially) are hypothesized entities and abstractions. Ridiculous. Bricmont and Sokal are putting forth a reasonable working definition of "real" which is conducive to scientific progress. You're arguing for a Platonic (ironic that you would be called a sophist) conception of the real as Mathematical Truth, which is useless and unproductive.
Hmmm...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/sandwiched_between_jodie_foste.php#comment-1576766
Posted by: Irenicus | August 26, 2009 3:42 PM
I said I read it a few years back. About five or six years ago, as it happens. No matter how carefully I read the essay, I'm unlikely to remember it in detail.
No, I'm not, and you ought to read more carefully. My definition (a) of real agrees entirely with Sokal and Bricmont. My definition (b) corresponds with "really real". (b) is not Platonism (I made one highly tentative comment about algorithms which veers somewhat toward Platonism, though I wouldn't defend that.)Nevertheless, I think what I said about the article is essentially correct. The long extract you pasted in has nothing to do with my "gross oversimplification", apart from the last paragraph, which agrees with my proposed distinction between theoretical entities (which Sokal fleshes out in detail) and "really real" (about which he doesn't have much to say).
Since everyone accepts that atoms satisfy (a), the only possible interesting source of conversation could be whether they satisfy (b). If you know your science, you'll see that in fact they don't.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 26, 2009 4:31 PM
FFS, I linked to it above! It takes about 10 minutes to read. It's directly on point (even uses some of the examples that have come up on this thread), and is written by two physicists (one a theoretical physicist and philosopher of science) whom you certainly cannot claim lack a basic understanding of the subject.
No, they do not agree with you, and would - judging by that piece alone even if I didn't know more about their thinking - find your nonsense about "really real" just that - nonsense. That's a main point of the friggin' article. They're saying those entities are real. Real to them as scientists and physicists more specifically.
Show me where in that article they agree with you.
(BTW, it's rude of you to keep ignoring Sven.)
You wouldn't defend what? It doesn't "veer somewhat." I asked you
If so, I'm a bit confused as to what entities you consider to exist scientifically.
and you answered:
It seems to me we can never know if we've reached the foundation. The rest of this is Platonic gibbering. Would you like to change your answer, and offer something scientists, or physicists specifically, consider real that you too view as "really real"?
Oh, and stop this pretense that you speak for all of physics or all of science. You don't, and your arguments should stand or fall on their merits.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 26, 2009 5:09 PM
It's twenty pages long (30 seconds per page, yet you claim to read it carefully?) Would take me a lot longer than ten minutes. I'm confident I remember the gist of the article, but I'll read it again at the weekend. I've been a fan of Sokal and Bricmont for many years, so I wouldn't be so sure you understand their "thinking" better than I do.
I don't think I'm guilty of "Platonic gibbering", yet you make the excellent point that we can never know whether we've reached the fundamental stuff of reality. This is why Sokal and Bricmont don't think definition (b) is worth talking about. I would disagree with them, since it seems to me that most of their article implicitly assumes a "really real".They clearly do agree with me, in my opinion. The "real" they talk about for almost all their article corresponds with my definition (a) of real. They mention a notion of "really real" (which they don't think is important), and that corresponds with my definition (b).
I don't know how you get the impression that I tried to create such a pretense. The only person bragging about qualifications was Nerd of Redhead.It might make sense to compare my definition (b) with an ideal gas, or a Carnot engine, or the absolute zero of temperatures. In other words, an idealization which is useful to think about and can be approximated better and better, but impossible to achieve in practice.
Aside: Is there an HTML way to indent? For some strange reason if I put a line space between my paragraphs the normal way, it usually doesn't show when I enter my post. I've tried, <br />, though that doesn't appear to be working.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 9:36 AM
Yes, and I've read it several times.
Evidently, I do.
Again, you are failing to appreciate their point.
No. But the point is that the coarser-grained real (no quotation marks) is still real to them. Really real. Not less real for being coarser-grained. Real.
And the existence of such idealizations does not make existing gases, for example, less real, is B&S's point. So, again, only abstract, theoretical entities are really real for you, and tables, for example, are theoretical entities.
Statements like:
(Your claim is quite easy to digest, by the way. It's Platonic bunk.)
Posted by: Irenicus | August 27, 2009 10:30 AM
The substance of your posts doesn't justify your consistent tone of condescending arrogance. Frankly, I don't think you understand some of the subtleties of this debate. You keep tugging the wrong end of the stick.
Obviously gases are real in sense (a). For them to satisfy (b) you'd have to specify much more information than the word "gas".The point Sokal and Bricmont are getting at is that since we don't possess a final, fundamental theory of everything, it would be foolhardy to base our usage of "real" around what we imagine to be the fundamental stuff of nature. However, this does not address the objection I raised earlier, namely that it's possible that sense (b) of real could be instructive as an unrealizable idealization.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 10:48 AM
Amazing. That sentence was immediately followed by:
Do you read your own writing?
You can't be bothered to read the article and yet you feel qualified to lecture on the subtleties of the debate.
That is part of their point. You're ignoring the rest. They're saying that approaching an ever finer-grained approximation of the fundamental is not getting closer to the real; the coarser-grained approximations are real. Really, really real.
How is that an objection to anything they or anyone else has said?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 27, 2009 11:05 AM
I usually view a table through the lenses of my macroscopic-organismal eyes. Looks real; supports my coffee cup. It's going to take a strong lens indeed before it starts looking more like empty space than a solid slab of wood. By the time I am looking through that strong a lens, I have lost all level-appropriate context. At my level of existence, that realm is if anything less "real" than the table per se.
With Descartes, I assert my own reality. At the same time, I acknowledge that I am composed of smaller organs, tissues, cells, molecules, but I haughtily proclaim "so what?"
Emergent properties are real. They exist.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 27, 2009 11:15 AM
Here's a Q&D test to see if that table, and your hand, are real. Put your left hand on the table. Take a hammer in your right hand, and hit your left hand with the hammer. Even in my thought experiment I said ouch. The hammer, hand, and table are real. To indicated otherwise is espousing non-reality.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 27, 2009 11:37 AM
Yes, I do. That one sentence doesn't come close to your several posts full of baseless arrogance. You need to get your eyes tested. I said I read the article several years back. At the time I was keenly interested in Sokal's and Bricmont's opinions on the philosophy of science. I still am to a lesser extent, although I'm now much more confident in my own ideas, and I don't see any need to keep revisiting their work as if it's a holy scripture. Again, you're assuming there is a single definition of "real" that we all agree upon. In fact I think there are two main senses of real. I already explained this. They indicate that "really real" -- or alternatively, sense (b) of real -- is unimportant. I disagree with them. In fact they implicitly apply sense (b) of real all the time in their essay, albeit as a kind of idealization which we can only approximate. Which is EXACTLY what I implied right at the beginning of this discussion. I said that the reality of an atom depends on the level you're looking at it. In chemistry, atoms are very real (given their explanatory power in chemistry); in string theory, atoms have no reality at all.Incidentally, I'm currently working on a mathematical theory of consciousness. Believe me, the distinction between the two different meanings of "real" DOES matter, and not being able to differentiate them will bedevil any theory of mind, as I see it.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 27, 2009 12:12 PM
Yeah, right. Look, just argue the substance and ignore the perceived tone.
This is ridiculous. You're lecturing on the subtleties of a piece you haven't read in years. No one is suggesting that you revisit it in that way, but if you're going to engage in an argument about/with it, you need to refresh your memory.
No, I'm describing the position of B&S, with which I agree.
You're conflating "fundamental" in their discussion with "real." They are saying that fundamental or foundational is not more real. And they don't imply that in the essay. They're not talking about abstract idealizations, but about levels of approximation to a single material reality.
This is the opposite of what B&S are arguing, and you've made no case against them.
That sounds interesting. I think you're misguided, and, again, I don't think you've made a case for your position here - just repeatedly asserted the same claim. But that's just my take.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 27, 2009 4:09 PM
Which I did, in my opinion. Interesting that you use the word "reality" to describe the stuff which is fundamental and which we strive to approximate. I think that pretty much proves my point.You're no postmodernist or radical skeptic. You and presumably everyone else posting here would happily accept that there is a real world out there, which we systematically only approximate with our descriptions, and which (modern science tells us) is very bizarre and counter-intuitive. The only exact description we could give of this stuff would surely have to be mathematical, and seemingly very abstract indeed.
Then there's the reality we're all familiar with: namely, the reality of tables and governments and substitute teachers. These might well be coarse-grainings, but with coarse-graining comes a loss of information. Common speech descriptions of the world are not equivalent to microscopic descriptions of the world. Since they're not equivalent, it makes little sense to call them both "real" without elaborating. They're different, not equivalent, and that is why I think we should distinguish between (a) real and (b) real.
Hope this helps make clear my position. I suspect we essentially agree on the substance, and differ in emphasis.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 8:40 AM
I honestly don't think we do agree on the substance (note pun :)).
How do you refresh your memory of an article without reading it?
The operative term in that sentence is "stuff." And you're very confused.
FFS, the first part of this is what I've been arguing all along, and a major point of B&S's piece. The second part is different. We approximate (in the sense of developing finer-grained descriptions) in terms of our knowledge of the more fundamental components; we don't approximate reality. There is scientific evidence for the existence of entities/forces at the coarser-grained levels. We don't need knowledge of the fundamental components to appreciate their reality, and finer-grained knowledge doesn't make them any less real.
I don't see the relevance of this to the argument at hand.
Baloney. I know fuck-all about physics, but physicists are actually looking for the Higgs boson. Exists or doesn't. Superstring theory is either correct or isn't. Empirical research, not pure mathematics, will tell. I've never heard Jim Gates, for example, claim otherwise.
It's all the same reality.
I don't see the relevance of this, either. And in fact, there's a gain in one sense in that we appreciate emergent properties. We're just talking about different levels of description/explanation of material reality.
Of course they are, if they're both based on empirical evidence.
Again, you're asserting this, but have not made a case for it.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 28, 2009 11:13 AM
I skimmed it over (I thought was implicit in my comments). You're not making any sense, because I've already granted that coarse-grainings are real according to one meaning of the word real. To argue against me, you need to explain why I'm wrong to split "real" into two different senses. I'm afraid you're assailing a strawman, because I've never once claimed anything so buffoonish as that pure mathematics can establish whether scientific theories are true. It also should be evident that the way you're using "real" corresponds exactly with my definition (a) of real. Actually I made a rigorously solid case for it. To show that two things are not equivalent, it's sufficient to show there exists one dissimilarity. I observed that coarse-graining of a description necessarily loses information -- therefore it cannot possibly be equivalent. I don't think any serious physicist or philosopher of science would dispute, for instance, that thermodynamic descriptions of a system are not at all equivalent to microscopic, statistical mechanical descriptions. The latter implies the former, but not the other way round.Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 11:46 AM
Actually, it wasn't, but that's lazy in any case. I don't know why you would expect anyone to take seriously your comments about a piece that you haven't read for years. You could have reread it in a fraction of the time it's taken you to post your last several comments here. Anyway, you said you'd read it over the weekend, so I'll wait for you to do that.
No, you are making the claim. You have to explain the relation of both your (a) and (b) to scientific notions of real (like that endorsed by B&S) and demonstrate the validity of (b). You haven't done so.
You're missing the point again, which is that what is being posited in theoretical physics is the existence of fundamental (as far as it's possible to know for the moment) entities which, if found through empirical research to exist would be real in exactly the same sense as everything else for which we have evidence, forming a part of the same continuous reality.
You haven't established that your idiosyncratic definitions have any validity or worth. (I understand what you're trying to do with (b), but you're misguided to use it as an ontological concept rather than a heuristic aid.)
Wrong. It depends on the meaning of the equivalence in context and the nature of any dissimilarities. In this case, even if it is true that "information" is lost, that would have no bearing on whether different degrees of granularity result in ontological nonequivalence.
That is precisely what Bricmont and Sokal dispute in that piece, and elsewhere.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Quoted above:
What specifically is your argument with this? At what scale do you think things become "really real," and why?
Posted by: Irenicus | August 28, 2009 7:08 PM
Very well, I will respond again when I've re-read the essay thoroughly.Posted by: Irenicus | August 28, 2009 7:15 PM
I suggest you re-read the essay yourself while I'm doing so, because you clearly have not understood all of it. A thermodynamic specification of a system is NOT, by any stretch, equivalent to a microscopic specification of that system. The latter contains more information. As I said, the thermodynamics can be deduced from the statistical mechanics. This is all Sokal and Bricmont say. They would never claim that thermodynamic and statistical-mechanical descriptions of a system are "equivalent". That would be absurd, and would be a misunderstanding of the physics.Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 1:25 PM
In fact, I did, yesterday afternoon. And I understand it. You still don't, apparently.
Please define "equivalence" in terms of existence/reality, which is what this conversation has been about.
Posted by: Irenicus | August 29, 2009 8:39 PM
Have re-read the essay thoroughly now. I couldn't help but notice two interesting features of the essay which are relevant in this discussion:
(1) S&B actually agree with me concerning my dispute with Nerd of Redhead (which was the origin of the ongoing dispute). This is especially apparent from a footnote on page 15 (bold text mine):
(2) Most of the essay is simply irrelevant. I would not contest S&B's "defense of modest realism". I would agree with them that radical skepticism is ridiculous, and I'd even go further than them and dismiss instrumentalism as ridiculous (not just its extreme forms). The section that IS relevant is section 3.2 on the "renormalization group view of the world". This, though, is by their own admission a tentative attempt to "clarify the meaning of 'approximately true'". I'm afraid thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are in no way "equivalent" descriptions of the world. S&B do not claim anything beyond that thermodynamics can be deduced from statistical mechanics (but not the other way round). This does not imply equivalence, even if you throw in the word "ontological".
You've failed to grasp their message if you think their point is that a coarse-graining is "equivalent" to a finer-graining. It isn't. My initial statement about thermodynamics and statistical mechanics was rigorously accurate. Repeat, rigorously accurate.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 8:43 PM
Irenicus, hit yourself with the hammer as in my thought experiment and tell me it isn't real. Empirical evidence trumps theoretical every day...
Posted by: Irenicus | August 29, 2009 8:50 PM
Actually, this thought experiment, examined deeply enough, counts as evidence in my favour, not yours. I take it as proving that consciousness is objective, not an "emergent property". (If it were some sort of emergent approximation, all sorts of slightly different things would be equally valid, and wouldn't have a very particular form.) But I have no interest in spelling out such subtleties to one as thick-headed and narrow-minded as yourself.Posted by: SC, OM | August 30, 2009 9:27 PM
You haven't responded to my request. You've simply asserted and reasserted that you were right all along. You've also ignored my related question about B&S's discussion of scales. I really don't see why these should be so hard to respond to directly.
Why would you pose these in opposition to one another? Why would you then substitute "emergent approximation" for "emergent property"?
Posted by: Irenicus | August 31, 2009 11:38 AM
Sorry, forgot about that. I take it you want me to respond to this: It should be evident that I don't have a problem with this, because I've already clarified that there's a very meaningful way in which thermodynamics, tables, governments, etc are real entities (according to (a) real). Sense (b) ("really real") is an idealization, which may never be realized. Even if we never reach it, this doesn't imply that the concept itself is worthless, any more than the absolute zero of temperatures is fruitless to think about. In fact S&B make implicit use of it all the time, when they speak of approximations to the final truth. Emergent properties ARE approximations, and it doesn't make much sense to say an approximation really exists (why would we use a word like approximation if it really existed?) It's a bit like claiming that a table with five legs is "approximately" the same as a table with four legs -- therefore the five-legged table exists, even though there's only a four-legged table present in the room. A priori, then, there's reason to be skeptical of the idea that consciousness arises as an "emergent" course-graining of the more fine-grained physical reality. When I try to flesh this out mathematically, I find the assumption that consciousness is "emergent" leads to contradictions. (Haven't published yet and I'm not going into detail.)Anyway, take this or leave it (you'll probably leave it). The essential point is that Nerd of Redhead's "I thus refute it!" kind of argument doesn't have only one conclusion, and in my opinion he shot himself in the foot.
Posted by: Zack | November 16, 2009 11:39 AM
Concerning Vestigial and arguments from:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/02/14/dembskis_predictions_at_last/
Great points made to counter argue Dembski's claims, but adding the "octopus" line at the end, foolish. Why would you take a great argument and make it loose its punch by adding insult to Dembski? I give Dembski credit for at least desiring to educate himself on the issues and looking for ways to critique what the science community is bringing to the public. Most Christians are running around, not engaging the world, and hanging onto their traditional beliefs without giving any credit to what role science is playing in our world today. You need to give the guy some credit (although he annoys many of you) for acknowledging what the science community is doing and wanting to find the problems with what is being taught in the world at large.
My concern is with the quotes used from Campbell’s book that talk about the "believed" change in reptiles seeing color or not. Scientists are asking me to exercise "faith" in their theories. I watch TV and all the time hear about how old the earth is, how long it has taken such and such to evolve to what we see now. Yet when I have faith in a God, I'm looked upon as irrational. Looking over the evidence I feel the faith I'm trusting is the one that has been around for millions of years, the one that many before me held onto. I will continue to educate myself on the theories of evolution and naturalistic philosophy, but I'm getting tired of beliefs pushed on me that are "supposed" and being criticized for my "supposed" beliefs.
Posted by: Zack | November 16, 2009 11:39 AM
Concerning Vestigial and arguments from:
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/02/14/dembskis_predictions_at_last/
Great points made to counter argue Dembski's claims, but adding the "octopus" line at the end, foolish. Why would you take a great argument and make it loose its punch by adding insult to Dembski? I give Dembski credit for at least desiring to educate himself on the issues and looking for ways to critique what the science community is bringing to the public. Most Christians are running around, not engaging the world, and hanging onto their traditional beliefs without giving any credit to what role science is playing in our world today. You need to give the guy some credit (although he annoys many of you) for acknowledging what the science community is doing and wanting to find the problems with what is being taught in the world at large.
My concern is with the quotes used from Campbell’s book that talk about the "believed" change in reptiles seeing color or not. Scientists are asking me to exercise "faith" in their theories. I watch TV and all the time hear about how old the earth is, how long it has taken such and such to evolve to what we see now. Yet when I have faith in a God, I'm looked upon as irrational. Looking over the evidence I feel the faith I'm trusting is the one that has been around for millions of years, the one that many before me held onto. I will continue to educate myself on the theories of evolution and naturalistic philosophy, but I'm getting tired of beliefs pushed on me that are "supposed" and being criticized for my "supposed" beliefs.