You know, TheWizard, my dad would whip the tar out of your dad.

How is this relevant to the discussion.

Are we playing my poppy can beat up your poppy, Mr. Moderator?

TheWizard wrote:Which brings us to the second reason I qualified myself, because those who are proponents of evolution SO typically describe those who don't as 'hating science,' when in fact I'm more a person of science than most of the rest of you, and don't believe in evolution..

First, a clarification. If you read the opening article of this thread, you will see that it is actually Marcelo Gleiser who phrases the question, “Why Do So Many Have Trouble Believing In Evolution?” As others have suggested, the word “believe” here is not entirely appropriate for a theory that is ultimately evidence-based. In that sense, any scientific theory should be considered a work in progress. Belief has no place in science and, by the way, neither does “certainty.” As Richard Feyman said, “in order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”

I've said before that science is like a flashlight probing through the darkness. Our confidence in our flashlight is not misplaced as long as we understand that we will never know everything, never see all the secrets in the darkness. Our knowledge is ultimately limited by our own in reasoning and imagination. And by the availability of evidence.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that all of us on this forum are intellectual peons compared to Mr. Mensa here. What would we do to ascertain whether evolution is true or not (at least as true as a scientific theory will allow). Let’s leave out the word “believe” for a moment and try simply to come to terms with the attitude we should take with regards to evolutionary theory.

I would say that these intellectual peons would surely be swayed by the fact that evolutionary theory does, in fact, explain most of the evidence—the hard facts about life that have been observed and measured. That evolutionary theory is not only the predominant theory, it is the only theory studied by scientists and academics at all high schools and universities in the world. That evolutionary theory is the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life on our planet until we discover some evidence that challenges it.

These peons, if they had some brains, would not be very impressed by the position of one person on a discussion forum. One person who is arguing a very fringe position and who has not any credibility at all except that he claims to be smarter than at least 98 percent of all people on the planet based on his IQ alone. The peon would likely wonder, well, why doesn’t Mr. Mensa have any peer-reviewed articles in science journals? Or why hasn’t he published a book in which he formulates a convincing argument that evolution is not true and that all people have been hoodwinked by a grand conspiracy of scientists and academics going back a couple of hundred years?

I think the attitude the peons would take towards evolutionary theory is that it is very probably the best theory we’ve got that best explains the evidence and that we can expect to see continued growth and refinement of the theory as new evidence comes in. And the peons would likely come to the conclusion that Mr. Mensa is basically a quack whose ego and admiration for his own IQ have led him to believe that his own beliefs don't really have to be examined because he is Mr. Mensa after all. Smarter than everyone else.

The crux of it, when (again) rendering a particular theory essentially logically equivalent to the alternatives (God, aliens etc etc), is the available evidence and how progressively uncovered facts fit or not a theory. The alternatives, as Dexter and others eloquently put, are fundamentally different in this respect, to use a polite word. Even without scientific evidence, using just the medieval gentleman Occam...
Therefore, leaving "belief" aside, and the way that "caveat" was used as a term + the recurrent pattern of "why" used in relation to the objective "what", it returns to rigorous reasoning (and the absence of it).

It was several times mentioned, there is a difference between "believing" in logical deduction and applying it... Of course, as it was stated a while back, this is not about evidence for some but it is about belief... and the difference between belief and logic reasoning based on evidence is lost on many...

These are some pretty interesting comments. They are also laced with presumptuousness about the natural world.


Without insulting the respectable world of logic too much, thus offending its most loyal zealots, logic, although highly effective, is a human construct developed by a very young phenomena of nature - the human brain - that is in the bodies of a species that apparently is continuing to experience evolutionary development.
I don't agree with what Interbane once said here on BT - that we've pretty much evolved enough to understand nature (am I right, Interbane. that what you said, right? correct me if I'm wrong).

There is no evidence for that claim. We have advanced our understanding, but these is no evidence that we are close to Truth or close to understanding the complexity of nature.

It's not where we are at - it's where we are going.

As I've said before, if our intelligence continues to increase it is likely that we will only have more and BETTER questions to ask nature and will discover greater complexity as we move forward.


Here is one of the most scientifically useful concepts of the Razor:

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

This sounds nice. And often it holds true.
However, there is no guarantee or universal edict in place that nature must provide explanandum that are concepts able to be reduced to simplest terms. That is human arrogant presumption in progress.

The tendency is to BELIEVE (that's all it is) that nature will fit into the descriptive boxes we have created for her.
That is an article of faith.

Lastly, although a formidable method of reasoning it is, logic itself does not always graft onto the world around us.
It definitely is a good guide, but it does not model the complexity of nature with God-like precision.

I know some people would like to replace a "dead God" with themselves.
But it ain't happening any time soon.
Good luck to anyone who believes they have.

I've said before that science is like a flashlight probing through the darkness. Our confidence in our flashlight is not misplaced as long as we understand that we will never know everything, never see all the secrets in the darkness. Our knowledge is ultimately limited by our own in reasoning and imagination. And by the availability of evidence.

Nice analogy.

What keeps us moving forward when our batteries go dim and the darkness is more overwhelming than not?

What keeps us believing that beyond our horizon of understanding, what is out there will be understandable because there is an order to it?


.

Geo, another (well done) reductio ad absurdum. You actually had the patience to explain it through its steps, which at least I admittedly several times left to the other party to think through - and it obsviously didn't work.
It reminds me the mentioned Klinghoffer case (it is a "case" as it is basically criminal in terms of falsification and fraudulent mis-use of neutral information), where their superior thinking & results were questioned. The only thing they could provide was a reference to their own book.
In the perfect reduction ad absurdum you have done, the discussed person/party can't even do that - and it is a much better mental exercise than what some of us tried, i.e. demonstrate how it makes self-defeating illogical arguments whilst constantly (again basic psychology) overcompensates for the intelligence at work.

Anyway, on the other note, Ant's summary is having a number of key highlights.
Personally, I would lift out one that is the difference between the origin of life and that of species. Very often one finds that discourse moves to even wider scope (i.e. confusion): I'm sure we all saw how certain "E-bashing" discusses cosmology, the way in which Earth was born, and then arrives at bashing theories on how life appeared.
Maybe it is because it is easy / convenient to see the origin and evolution of species as a sequential stage in the above - and of course it isn't in a general sense. Plus it drags in a lot of scientific theories with very varying degree of theoretical and/or empirical evidence, therefore it helps in pointing out just how much we don't know.
Gosh, it almost starts to then sound like Donald Rumsfeld's (in)famous speech about WMD

And the point on it not being invented basically to contrive religion is also key. Whilst we like to make fun of the logical (?) patterns that often occur, it goes to the neutrality of data. Conspiracy theories can always be brought in, regarding the absence, the editing or the creation/falsification of data - but they increasingly start to sound like a psychiatric condition when one really starts unpicking them.

Regarding evolution that is still ongoing, of course the stronger/deeper side of sci-fi concerned itself a lot about the course it takes into the distant future. Naturally, not talking about silly blue aliens in cheapo TV series, but the quiet pertinent work of the heavyweights (Clarke, Bradbury, Dick, Silverberg etc.).
Whilst it is "just" sci-fi, it sometimes raises genuinely intriguing scientific thoughts- so going back to the thread topic, I can't remember who first stated it in a short story, but there was quite a bit of musing over the idea that certain anatomical structures / features (hands, certain symmetricity, head with eyes etc.) are not necessarily laughable similarities in how some imagine alien life. It was postulated that certain such features would be converged to in radically different evolutionary paths, too, as some are just generally convenient and/or optimal (from energy conservation to the positioning of sensory organs etc.). Anyway, just a side-thought.

I remember a Hungarian magazine called Life & Science (Elet es Tudomany) that seized to exist in the 90s - it ran a long series of sometimes funny articles on "imaginary animals". The whole point of it was to apply what is known about evolution (at that point) and play some mindgames about totally bonkers non-existent species that would have developed in certain ways. It was tongue-in-cheek very often, and hilarious, but it had the merit of bringing the thoughts about genetics, biomechanics etc. outside the box of our own specific environment and its history as we know it.

ant wrote:And yet certain people ride such a high horse when they distribute condemnation on those that dont believe in a theory.
That to me is utter nonsense.

I don't condemn people who disbelieve. I think they are wrong, and they need to be educated. At the same time, I know that the majority of them are good people, worthy of respect and compassion. There are not multiple correct views of reality, and if 42% of our population has an incorrect view, that is definitely a statistic that can be improved upon.

ant wrote:What keeps us believing that beyond our horizon of understanding, what is out there will be understandable because there is an order to it?

A healthy mixture of inductive reasoning and faith. Is this the same answer you would give?

A healthy mixture of inductive reasoning and faith. Is this the same answer you would give?

Actually it's not. I have a different idea.
And because of that, I'm wrong.

But you wouldn't like it and I wouldn't share it with you anyway.

Remember you told me here in our community that you liked me but didn't like the way I think?

That's a great conversation starter, isn't it?
It's just oozing with tolerance.

Huh?

Ant, on logic: of course it, like everything else we may ever think and/or type, is ex mente.
It is "venerable" and we have a "loyalty" to it, because it is abstract and neutral enough (with a very long history) to provide a skeleton to any reasoning in any area of science (and of course philosophy etc.).

So if we say we can not trust logic's laws, in any of our reasoning method, then we are faced with a bit of a problem. Stanislaw Lem, rest in peace, concerned himself a lot with what reality is and to what extent we can use our minds to reason about it. And the crowds of philosophers, too, of course...

Ant wrote:Without insulting the respectable world of logic too much, thus offending its most loyal zealots,

I may point out something if you don't mind: one can't use the words "loyal" and "zealots" together with logic - the former are feelings/emotions, the point in logic and its understanding/adoption by someone is the lack of emotional process. So again I at least can't figure out whether you feel (not accidental choice of word here) that logic is entirely subjective/emotional, or you jest or you make a valid point in 2nd part of sentence with a bit of tongue-in-cheek cage rattling preceding it to spice it up...

ant wrote:

I've said before that science is like a flashlight probing through the darkness. Our confidence in our flashlight is not misplaced as long as we understand that we will never know everything, never see all the secrets in the darkness. Our knowledge is ultimately limited by our own in reasoning and imagination. And by the availability of evidence.

Nice analogy.

What keeps us moving forward when our batteries go dim and the darkness is more overwhelming than not?

What keeps us believing that beyond our horizon of understanding, what is out there will be understandable because there is an order to it?


.

There are limits to our knowledge, but on the other hand, every time time we climb one mountain, we see more mountains to climb. It has always been that way.

I may point out something if you don't mind: one can't use the words "loyal" and "zealots" together with logic - the former are feelings/emotions, .

I can see you feel strongly about this topic.
I can respect the feelings you've expressed.

Thanks for that.