Philosophy of Science
emjohnson | November 17, 2009
See thro' this air, this ocean, and this earth
All matter quick, and bursting into birth:
Above, how high progressive life may go!
Around, how wide! how deep extend below!
Vast chain of being! which from God began;
Natures ethereal, human, angel, man,
Beast, bird, fish, insect, who no eye can see,
No glass can reach; from infinite to thee;
From thee to nothing.--On superior powers
Were we to press, inferior might on ours;
Or in the full creation leave a void,
Where, one step broken, the great scale's destroyed:
From Nature's chain whatever link you like,
Tenth, or ten thousandth, breaks the…
emjohnson | November 7, 2009His birthday is actually on Monday, but today marks the first annual event initiated by Broward College in Florida. In honor of the event, here is Carl Sagan's final interview prior to his death. Amazing isn't it that the science vs. religion debate hasn't changed much after 15 years. But it must be the atheists that are to blame!
You may be interested in my earlier post discussing Carl Sagan's principled stance on nuclear winter that I wrote to accompany Seed magazine's interview with biologist Paul Ehrlich.
Think big thoughts today and take Sagan's message of skepticism and humble awe…
emjohnson | November 2, 2009As Jawaharlal Nehru wrote of his native land but as a stranger in the process of discovery, "India is a geographical and economic entity, a cultural unity amidst diversity, a bundle of contradictions held together by invisible threads." These invisible threads were the spiritual beliefs of the people, the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita and the Manu Smriti. The sacred Ganges was a symbol of India's life blood, as much for the Indian people as for the British colonialists, that, as Rudyard Kipling described in his story "The Bridge Builders," was a natural force that needed to be conquered if the…
emjohnson | October 22, 2009I am tremendously excited to have David Sloan Wilson as a member of ScienceBlogs, and having had a small role in his decision is extremely gratifying. However, I take serious issue with the thesis of his first entry that bears the subtitle "Science as a Religion that Worships Truth as its God." This sat uncomfortably with me when I first saw it and it's been a persistent irritation ever since.
A light went off when I read one of the comments on his inaugural post. It was buried down the list (#54 to be precise), was only two sentences long, and would easily have been overlooked if I didn…
ddobbs | September 7, 2009Bloggingheads.tv just posted a conversation Greg Laden and I had about the second-biggest scientific controversy of Darwin's time, and of Darwin's life: the argument over how coral reefs form. The coral reef argument was fascinating in its own right, both scientifically and dramatically -- for here a very capable andn conscientious scientist, Alexander Agassiz, struggled to reconcile both two views of science and the legacies of the two scientific giants of the age, one of whom was his father.
His story -- and the tumultuous 19th-century struggle to define science and empiricism -- is the…
laelaps | June 8, 2009 Is intelligent design science, or not? Think carefully before you answer. The modern intelligent design (ID) movement is motivated by theological concerns and trades in on religious authority to meet its aims, but stripped of this background, can ID be relegated to the "junk science" bin? While the answer to this latter question is "Yes", in a new paper ("The science question in intelligent design") Sahotra Sarkar argues that proclaiming ID to be non-science without careful consideration does little good.
As Sarkar notes, there is no easily definable demarcation criteria to deem ID science…
tfk | May 21, 2009There are those who say "Not only does the NCSE not criticize religion, but it cuddles up to it, kisses it, and tells it that everything will be all right." There are others who say:
The continuum [between creationism and evolution] as described on the NCSE site strongly implies that “atheist science is better science”. Even though the objective of the continuum is to counter the belief that “evolutionists must be atheists”, it indirectly implies that evolutionists should be atheists. For this fact alone, I think the model needs to be replaced.
A simpler person than I would take this to mean…
evolvingthoughts | May 19, 2009In addition to the "missing link" trope that is being dished out about the new primate fossil, is another one, more subtle and insidious: it's the ancestor of all primates. How do they know that? Consider a biologically realistic scenario: at the time there were probably hundreds of species of small bodied mammals with tails and feet like that. One of these species may be the ancestor of all primates, but what are the odds that a specimen from that species is the one that was preserved? Just as all primates now look remarkably similar overall, but one may be the common ancestor of a group in…
evolvingthoughts | May 18, 2009One of the problems that many people have with evolution is not religious, but philosophical. If evolution is true, they think, then we are at sea - nothing is fixed, nothing is determinate, all coherence is gone, as Donne famously lamented of the death of the two-sphere universe and physics. This is, I believe, a valid worry. But it is not new or due to evolution: Heraclitus worried about it, as did Parmenides, and the solutions given by Plato and Aristotle against the atomists were in effect ways to deny that what really counted was changing. They called change "degeneration" or "corruption…
evolvingthoughts | May 18, 2009The wonderful Project Gutenberg has just released a fully HTMLised version of R. C. Punnett's (he of the famous "square") 1911 book Mendelism, which shows how quickly the implications of Mendelian genetics, rediscovered 11 years earlier, were worked through. It's a wonderful read, and anyone with a slight knowledge of biology and the interest to work through the examples can understand it, something one cannot say of texts on science for very much longer after this. I was particularly interested in the following passage, from page 150:
One last question with regard to evolution. How far does…
evolvingthoughts | May 11, 2009It is often the case that when non-academics, or even non-humanities academics, talk about my generic field, they refer to it as "arts", and mean by this the creative arts, like performing arts, crafts, and corporate accounting. So they justify the funding for the "arts" (or "the yartz", as a Barry Humpries character calls them) because we are supposed to entertain people and add to cultural life.
Those who know me know this is not what I do. I have been known to sing in the shower, but that is about it. So I was very pleased to see this piece in the Australian Higher Education section…
evolvingthoughts | May 11, 2009Again, the press are talking about "the missing link". Let's get one thing clear. There is no missing link. Rather, there are an indefinite number of missing branches. To have a missing link, you need to visualise evolution as a chain. If there's a gap in the chain, then you have a missing link. But evolution, at least at the scale of animals and plants, is mostly a tree. And all we see are individual nodes of the tree, the extant species that form, in Darwin's metaphor, the leaves of the living tree, and the extinct species that form branching points deeper in the tree. But we do not have…
evolvingthoughts | May 10, 2009Before this text in 1686, the term species just meant some sort or kind of organism. It was a Latin word in ordinary use without much meaning in natural history, but then arguments began whether or not there were one or more species for this or that group, and so it became important to know what was meant by the term in natural history. That is, a distinctly biological concept of species was needed, and John Ray gave it here:
The translation is this:
In order that an inventory of plants may be begun and a classification (divisio) of them correctly established, we must try to discover…
evolvingthoughts | May 8, 2009As the science of order ("taxonomy"), Systematics is a pure science of relations, unconcerned with time, space, or cause. Unconcerned with time: systematics is non-historic and essentially static; it knows only a simple juxtaposition of different conditions of form. Unconcerned with space: geographical factors are not primary criteria in the definition of taxonomic units. Unconcerned with cause: systematics has no explanatory function as far as the origin of the system is concerned; it is merely comparing, determining, and classifying.
Borgmeier, Thomas. 1957. Basic Questions of Systematics.…
evolvingthoughts | May 8, 2009There was a paper recently in PNAS on "The cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief". A couple of bloggers, Epiphenom and I Am David, come to opposite conclusions. Epiphenom says that the study shows that religion is not a side-effect of the evolution of cognitive processes, while IAD says that is exactly what it shows.
The paper purports to show that when thinking about God or beliefs about God, the very same areas of the brain are used that are used in ordinary social interactions and so on:
The MDS results confirmed the validity of the proposed psychological structure of…
evolvingthoughts | May 8, 2009It's called Philosophy and Theory in Biology. This is based on some heavy hitters: Massimo Pigliucci, Jon Kaplan, Alan Love and Joan Roughgarden are the editors, and the editorial board looks like a Who's Who of philosophy of biology. No apparent page charges, and it's online only (I hope they take care of the enduring archiving), but it looks interesting. How it differs, apart from being virtualised, from Biology and Philosophy, Biological Theory and the several other more specialised journals I can't yet say.
evolvingthoughts | May 6, 2009My union is calling a strike next Tuesday. I'm not sure what to do. I don't teach, and have no administrative duties, so should I stop thinking from for 8 hours? I'm not sure the administration would notice...
Rob Skipper at hpb etc. has a series of podcasts from the series of lectures on Darwiniana that were held there recently. They include John Beatty, Roberta Millstein and Ken Waters, all serious folk in philosophy of biology (although Roberta, at least, is not serious all the time). From the sublime to the faintly absurd, you can also see my talk in Lisbon, one of them, anyway, at…
evolvingthoughts | May 5, 2009Asks MSNBC's Chris Matthews of the GOP's Mike Pence. The latter dances around it, trying to avoid asserting what science knows to be true, but this raises an interesting problem: does one have to "believe" in evolution? I mean it's a physical process (the "fact" side) which has a number of explanatory models (the "theory" side). I don't believe in facts; I deal with them. And I don't believe in explanations; I am satisfied with them (or not, as the case may be). This is not about belief, which implies that acceptance of the satisfactory nature of evolutionary explanations is somehow…