Philosophy of Science
evolvingthoughts | July 27, 2008
Lately there has been a rediscovery on the blogia of C. P. Snow's Two Cultures - which initially was the divide between those who understood the Second Law of Thermodynamics and those who don't, but is now, it appears, between those who know math and those who don't, and the respective attitudes. In Chad's initial post, the discussion turned to the Sokal hoax and what it is supposed to prove. So what I want to do here is a little "compare and contrast" between what is usually thought to be the main themes of postmodern philosophy (not being an expert, I may be... no I certainly am…
evolvingthoughts | July 26, 2008
A new genus name for water mites, from a recent paper in Zootaxa:
Vagabundia comes from the Spanish word ‘vagabundo’ that means ‘wanderer’. It is a feminine substantive; sci refers to Science Citation Index. We pointed out some time ago (Valdecasas et al. 2000) that the popularity of the Science Citation Index (SCI) as a measure of ‘good’ science has been damaging to basic taxonomic work. Despite statements to the contrary that SCI is not adequate to evaluate taxonomic production (Krell 2000), it is used routinely to evaluate taxonomists and prioritize research grant proposals. As with…
evolvingthoughts | July 26, 2008
In the process of maintaining the Basic Concepts in Science list I often have to make a judgement call about whether or not something is a basic enough post. For example I have a slew of rather good but to my mind very technical posts by Carl Brannen at Mass which are labelled "Elementary Science" that I cannot understand. I have a PhD in philosophy of science, so I figure if I can't understand them fully, they are pretty much not at the basic level. But then again, they are basic in that science.
So this raises (not begs!) the question of what is a basic concept...
... and this has no…
evolvingthoughts | July 17, 2008
Stealing this one from Moselio Schachter:
A guy walks at night on a beach in California and stubs his toe against an old bottle, which breaks and releases a genie. “I’ll grant you one wish, oh Master,” says the genie.
The man replies, “Well, I'd dearly love to go to Hawaii but I hate both airplanes and ships, so would you build me a highway from here to there?” The genie thinks for a moment, then replies, “Indeed, I said you could have one wish, but this one seems nearly impossible. Could you ask for something easier?"
The man, being a microbiological sort, says, “OK, can you then tell me…
evolvingthoughts | July 15, 2008
Ryan Gregory at Genomicron has a couple of interesting posts; One on Natural Selection before Darwin, which discusses prior presentations back to Hutton. I think he's right that prior to Darwin selection was typically not thought of as a way to form new species. It's generally not after Darwin either - speciation is usually thought of as a side effect of selection. Also he argues that abiogenesis, the formation of life from abiotic materials, is a part of evolution, but not required by evolutionary theory. I agree: but not because abiogenesis begins with replication. Rather, I think…
evolvingthoughts | July 2, 2008
Hi folks. It's conference time again, and of course we have organised to have the Australasian Association of Philosophy/Australasian Association for the History Philosophy and Social Studies of Science (AAP/AAHPSSS) conferences in the coldest place on the mainland - my home town Melbourne, at the depths of winter. At least it's not Vancouver. So I'm going to be a bit quiet for a while. Play Mornington Crescent amongst yourselves until I get back (not you, Grossman. You're supposed to be fully engaged at the conference. If I see you in the comments after Sunday, I shall refuse to buy you a…
evolvingthoughts | July 1, 2008
Readers may be somewhat surprised that Evolving Thoughts hasn't made much of the Darwin bicentennial and the Origin sesquicentennial so far. Well, I haven't needed to, given the number of other folk making hay from this. In particular I recommend Carl Zimmer's piece, over at his new digs with Discover magazine. Carl points out John van Whye's paper that showed that Darwin didn't "sit on the theory for 20 years" but rather followed a preplanned sequence for backing up his ideas. However, when Charles planned this research, he greatly underestimated the time it would take him (the Cirripedia…
evolvingthoughts | June 26, 2008
Barbara Forrest has an excellent analysis and background story on the introduction of the creationist bill in Louisiana, and the organisations supporting it, here at Talk2Reason.
There's a new phylogeny of birds out. See GrrllScientist's post, and a full size tree here. Late edit See Bird Evolution - Problems with Science for more.
Jesse Prinz has an essay on atheism and morality, which I think jumps the shark at the end (how can there be atheist charities? Atheism is the lack of some belief, so any charity that doesn't make theism part of its core mission already is atheist), here at…
evolvingthoughts | June 25, 2008
The French have always had an affinity for developmental models of historical processes. Comte famously argued that societies had four stages to go through. Lamarck held that species were like individual organisms that had a youth, maturity and senescence. And more recently Teilhard held that evolution was heading towards a single goal. It's the philosophy of the Great Chain made temporal...
But maybe there are more general properties of historical processes that might be empirically determined to be either evolutionary (contingent) or developmental (systematically predictable)? After all…
evolvingthoughts | June 18, 2008
In an interesting post, Think Gene poses what they call "the inherent problem" of scientific theories:
The inherent problem of scientific theories is that there exists an infinite equally valid explanations. Why? Because unlike in mathematics, we never have perfect information in science. ...
OK, so our world understanding improves as we verify models, like if the Large Hadron Collider finds the Higgs… right? Theoretically, no. An infinite number of theories that are just as “probable” as the others still exist to be tested. All that was done was eliminate some of the theories. Subtracting…
evolvingthoughts | June 17, 2008
One of the most important documents published in zoology in the 19th century was in fact a rather mundane one: The Strickland Code:
Hugh. E. Strickland, John Phillips, John Richardson, Richard Owen, Leonard Jenyns, William J. Broderip, John S. Henslow, William E. Shuckard, George R. Waterhouse, William Yarrell, Charles R. Darwin, and John O. Westwood, "Report of a Committee Appointed "To Consider of the Rules by Which the Nomenclature of Zoology May Be Established on a Uniform and Permanent Basis"," Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1842, 1843: 105-21.…
evolvingthoughts | June 16, 2008
From the Enough Rope series by the inestimable Andrew Denton, interviewing Sir David Attenborough, in the course of which, this segment on creationism, below the fold. Humane thoughts of a great humanist.
ANDREW DENTON: Let's talk about the imagination of human beings. You're strongly on the record as being opposed to the concept of creationism. Why do you feel so strongly about it?
I feel so strongly about it because I think that it is in a quite simple historical factual way wrong. Um the arguments I would ah put forward ah now that we are um more knowledgeable about the world as a…
evolvingthoughts | June 11, 2008
History is one of those things that the venal mine to serve their special interests, with no concern for truth or accuracy. But it takes real stupid to say this:
Contrary to popular belief, as historian David Barton points out, the theory of evolution was around long before Charles Darwin. As far back as the 6th century B.C., Greek writers Thales and Anaximander had propounded the theory centuries before the birth of Christ. Aristotle, influenced by his intellectual forbears, also advocated a form of evolution.
Other ancient writers like Diogenes, Empedocles, Democritus, and Lucretius, all…
evolvingthoughts | June 7, 2008
The final of my comments on this topic (see one and two here) addresses the question whether or not there is a rank of species.
Once I had a paper knocked back by a reviewer in which I argued that there was nothing unique to being species. This became my 2003 paper. The reviewer said that the paper failed to accept that there was a "grade of organisation" in biology that comprised species. This was not surprising as the paper argued that no such grade existed (and I was able to convince the editor that this was a decent argument to make). However, many biologists are convinced such a rank…
evolvingthoughts | June 4, 2008
This is a kind of scattered post on a few things that have caught my eye, while I am avoiding boring work.
Paeloblog reports that a paper in Nature has done a phylogeny on continuous rather than discrete characters, using morphometric criteria to do a hominin phylogeny. This is not the first such attempt to use continuous characters in cladistics, and I would be interested if those who understand this topic comment on this attempt. It seems to me that the main difference between discrete and continuous data would be that the continua are an ordered set of otherwise discrete data points, so…
evolvingthoughts | June 2, 2008
So, in the last episode, you'll recall that the dastardly villain "theory" has relinquished its grip on species in a cliffhanger. But that raises a few questions. What, for instance, is it to be a theoretical object?
Traditionally, something was a theoretical object, that is, an object that was only theoretical, if it was something that the theory required or employed but which was not empirically ascertainable. Examples were "electron" c1920, "gene" prior to 1952, and perhaps still "Higgs boson" for reasons that I do not understand. But this is a positivist sense of theory - a formal…
evolvingthoughts | June 1, 2008
John Pieret's blog Thoughts in a Haystack has an essay on this that is well worth reading, although I'd rather be called an elite snob than an elite bastard because all Australians are bastards. It's part of the Carnival of the Elite Bastards #1 at En Tequila es Verdad.
evolvingthoughts | May 31, 2008
MOUSEBENDER: Good Morning.
WENSLEYDALE: Good morning, sir. Welcome to the National Cheese Emporium.
MOUSEBENDER: Ah, thank you my good man.
WENSLEYDALE: What can I do for you, sir?
MOUSEBENDER: Well, I was, uh, sitting in the public library on Thurmond Street just now, skimming through History of the Inductive Sciences by William Whewell, and I suddenly came over all peckish.
WENSLEYDALE: Peckish, sir?
MOUSEBENDER: Esurient.
WENSLEYDALE: Eh?
MOUSEBENDER: (In a broad Yorkshire accent) Eee I were all hungry, like.
WENSLEYDALE: Ah, hungry.
MOUSEBENDER: In a nutshell. And I thought to myself, '…