Evolution, testability and scientific dogma

[Sultan Of Swing]

Charles Birch and Paul Ehrlich write in an article Evolutionary History and Population Biology, in Nature vol 214 (1967) pg 349:
’Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets.’

Thoughts?

If anyone had the full paper that'd be useful too, I'm not familiar with what the laws are on sharing research papers though which usually require subscription, I could only find the abstract:

"While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more sceptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past ? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions."

 

[Valjean]

In the half century since that article, every observation and discovery has only strengthened and expanded our confidence in the ToE.
I'd be interested in seeing the article in its entirity, and the commentary in subsequent editions.

 

[Altfish]

As I always say in these sort of debates, there is a Nobel Prize awaiting anyone who can disprove the ToE. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[LuisDantas]

At this point, disproving the ToE basically means proving the Matrix.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It might have been cutting edge thinking about the nature of the theory 50 years ago, but it was, after all, the thinking of a couple of authors at that time...and there's been an awful lot of development in the field of biology and evolution since then.

Not sure whether or not the theory as a whole is falsifiable, but individual propositions about it have been falsifiably tested, and continue to be tested. For example, when finding fossils, we do not expect to find current lifeforms fossilized in ancient sediments--we expect to find related but ancestral forms. That is a testable proposition, and so far, there haven't been any discoveries of for example, human remains with dinosaurs. As genetics and biochemistry has advanced considerably since 1967, I believe that a lot of formerly untestable propositions have become testable.

 

[Augustus]

If anyone had the full paper that'd be useful too, I'm not familiar with what the laws are on sharing research papers though which usually require subscription,

You might be interested in my thread on the ethics of academic publishing

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

In the half century since that article, every observation and discovery has only strengthened and expanded our confidence in the ToE.
I'd be interested in seeing the article in its entirity, and the commentary in subsequent editions.

As I always say in these sort of debates, there is a Nobel Prize awaiting anyone who can disprove the ToE. I'm not holding my breath though.

At this point, disproving the ToE basically means proving the Matrix.

Well one of the points the authors make in the quote, is that it cannot be refuted because every conceivable observation can be fit into it, and further observations since 1967 would be expected to fit into the theory because that is the very nature of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well one of the points the authors make in the quote, is that it cannot be refuted because every conceivable observation can be fit into it, and further observations since 1967 would be expected to fit into the theory because that is the very nature of it.

That is another way of putting it. And it means much the same.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That is another way of putting it. And it means much the same.

Do you not see a problem with this? No matter what empirical observation you make, it can be fit into the theory of evolution so that it can't ever be refuted.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Do you not see a problem with this? No matter what empirical observation you make, it can be fit into the theory of evolution so that it can't ever be refuted.

The assertion that NO empirical observation can be refuted is incorrect. There are lots of empirical assertions in biology that could be and have been refuted. Earlier classifications of species and their relationships based on various physical characteristics have been overturned with evidence from biochemistry and genetics--Yes it still fits under evolution; it shows that species are related, and closely-related species come from common ancestors--but the genetic basis is a better indicator of that relationship than the morphology of the species. What if the biochemical and genetic evidence had shown that there were no relationships between apparently closely-related species? That would undermine the idea of evolution from common ancestors, and therefore the theory of evolution.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

It might have been cutting edge thinking about the nature of the theory 50 years ago, but it was, after all, the thinking of a couple of authors at that time...and there's been an awful lot of development in the field of biology and evolution since then.

Not sure whether or not the theory as a whole is falsifiable, but individual propositions about it have been falsifiably tested, and continue to be tested. For example, when finding fossils, we do not expect to find current lifeforms fossilized in ancient sediments--we expect to find related but ancestral forms. That is a testable proposition, and so far, there haven't been any discoveries of for example, human remains with dinosaurs.

That's a good point, if that were discovered that would certainly cause difficulty.

Do you know what counts as being 'testable' from a scientific standpoint? As someone who's more of a physics guy, the realm of evolutionary biology seems a lot more like detective work to me, finding answers about the distant past, where as I much prefer stuff I can just get an immediate answer from in a lab that happens in the here and now. (I guess I'm a simpleton)

Would you say there is a difference between the kind of evidence that would lead to supporting the theory of evolution; making connections between fossils, classification, genetics etc., and, say, the kind of evidence that can be found in a lab e.g. confirming the wave-like properties of electrons?

As genetics and biochemistry has advanced considerably since 1967, I believe that a lot of formerly untestable propositions have become testable.

Any examples?

 

[rusra02]

Charles Birch and Paul Ehrlich write in an article Evolutionary History and Population Biology, in Nature vol 214 (1967) pg 349:
’Our theory of evolution has become, as [Karl] Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more scepticism about many of its tenets.’

Thoughts?

If anyone had the full paper that'd be useful too, I'm not familiar with what the laws are on sharing research papers though which usually require subscription, I could only find the abstract:

"While accepting evolutionary theory, should ecologists be more sceptical about hypotheses derived solely from untestable assumptions about the past ? The authors put forward the view that many ecologists underestimate the efficacy of natural selection and fail to distinguish between phylogenetic and ecological questions."

"Evolutionary dogma" well describes the ideas and claims made by evolutionists, IMO. Yet, the theory of evolution is taught and accepted as unquestionable truth by most, and any competing ideas, such as intelligent design, are met with hostility and scorn.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That's a good point, if that were discovered that would certainly cause difficulty.

Do you know what counts as being 'testable' from a scientific standpoint? As someone who's more of a physics guy, the realm of evolutionary biology seems a lot more like detective work to me, finding answers about the distant past, where as I much prefer stuff I can just get an immediate answer from in a lab that happens in the here and now. (I guess I'm a simpleton)

Would you say there is a difference between the kind of evidence that would lead to supporting the theory of evolution; making connections between fossils, classification, genetics etc., and, say, the kind of evidence that can be found in a lab e.g. confirming the wave-like properties of electrons?


Any examples?

Being testable varies across the sciences: what is testable in physics, chemistry or materials science are not as testable in the realm of geology, biology, ecology--and certainly not (or at least not ethically) in the social sciences. In physics, for example, you can throw atoms at each other at nearly the speed of light to see what happens when they collide, but you can't really do that with, say, humans...The complexity of the context of physics is very low by comparison to the context of biological systems, and thus it is much more difficult to figure out what is going on in a living organism than it is in piece of 95% pure metal.

Of course there are differences between physics and biology; and even within a field, there are different kinds and levels of theory. Some theories are descriptive (the so-called Standard Model of particle physics is one such model--it describes, but doesn't provide any understanding of why that arrangement is what it is. So far, the theories that try to explain that (eg string theory) are not observationally testable, although many different interpretations of string theory have been eliminated because of contradictions to observed conditions.

Some theories are low-level; that is, they describe a limited set of observations. An example would be Dark Matter, or Dark Energy--in both cases, there is observational evidence, but we have never directly observed what is causing those observations. We therefore posit that there is "dark matter" that doesn't interact with normal matter except through gravity; we posit there is an "energy" that is causing the universe to expand more rapidly. Those are low-level, descriptive theories. A mid-level theory would identify the cause and be able to make predictions about those observations, and make that theory fit with our other theories about the behavior of matter. Finally, a high-level theory would be the "Theory of Everything" that Einstein, Hawking and so many other physicists have been pursuing for generations: a simple mathematical explanation of everything that is observed in the universe--what Einstein termed, "the mind of God." Such a theory is not directly refutable, but every observation in the universe has to be logically and methodically traceable back to that theory, that understanding.

Evolution is a high-level theory like physics' desired Theory of Everything. It is an explanation for a whole raft of observations, in this case, from a variety of different fields (biology, archeology, geology, biochemistry, genetics...). It starts with simple observational descriptive, low-level theories: all the finches on the Galapagos Islands are related to the common ancestors who arrived there at some point in the past, and have since developed into different species exploiting different opportunities in the environment there. That fact (along with lots of other similar observations from other species in other locations) leads to the mid-level theory of speciation through the effects of natural selection--which was a catch-all term for all the possible impacts: food availability, predators, climate, selection of mating partners, and so on--which are all other mid-level theories about how evolution--speciation--can occur. Speciation over time predicts that modern forms will not appear in the older fossil record, but earlier forms with features similar to but generally "more primitive" than the current forms will appear in the older geological formations. Thus, the Theory of evolution isn't directly refutable, but covers a lot of mid and low-level observations and theories that could be invalidated by observations.

 

[Windwalker]

Yet, the theory of evolution is taught and accepted as unquestionable truth by most, and any competing ideas, such as intelligent design, are met with hostility and scorn.

By Intelligent Design you of course mean the modern re-dressing of old-school Creationism. It is not a competing scientific idea. It never has been. All it has ever been is a criticism of evolution, where it itself offers no scientific explanations for anything, let alone any valid evidences. There are however many competing ideas within the sciences, but they are scientific ideas. The reason Creationism is met with ridicule is because it tries to pose as science. If anyone stepping into a science discussion brings non-scientific propositions, such as "magic" did it, they likewise will be met with laughter and derision. As well they should.

The reason Creationism is met with hostility, is because it is fake-science using popular opinion and political manipulations to try to pretend it's science and get put into science curriculum. It would be like astrology doing the same thing, trying to get people's fascination with the Zodiac Signs to get accepted as real science and be taught to children as if it were, lending the legitimizing term "science" to it. It should be met as a hostile, as it is. It's hostile to reason. It's hostile to science. It's hostile to advancing understanding. It's anti-science.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you not see a problem with this? No matter what empirical observation you make, it can be fit into the theory of evolution so that it can't ever be refuted.

I think you are misunderstanding what they said. As in so many other examples of statements about the ToE, a comparision with gravity is befitting. It is just as impossible, and as problematic, to disprove gravity.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I think you are misunderstanding what they said. As in so many other examples of statements about the ToE, a comparision with gravity is befitting. It is just as impossible, and as problematic, to disprove gravity.

I'm sorry I think you're misunderstanding it and should read it again. They talk about "the cure" in the final sentence which is clearly implying this is a problem, not something desirable, and the use of the word 'dogma' isn't a positive one.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm sorry I think you're misunderstanding it and should read it again. They talk about "the cure" in the final sentence which is clearly implying this is a problem, not something desirable, and the use of the word 'dogma' isn't a positive one.

While it is true there is certain dogmas and orthodoxies in science that can and do get in the way, which is what they are talking about, this does not therefore translate into giving credibility to unscientific ideas that have already had their day on the table of discussion and shown to be unworthy. In other words it doesn't open the door to pseudoscience. "Teach the controversy" is a political farce. There is no controversy, and that's not due to the entrenchment of certain orthodox dogmas in science. It's unworthy across the board.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

While it is true there is certain dogmas and orthodoxies in science that can and do get in the way, which is what they are talking about, this does not therefore translate into giving credibility to unscientific ideas that have already had their day on the table of discussion and shown to be unworthy. In other words it doesn't open the door to pseudoscience. "Teach the controversy" is a political farce. There is no controversy, and that's not due to the entrenchment of certain orthodox dogmas in science. It's unworthy across the board.

Sure, I never claimed this gives credibility to other ideas.

 

[Windwalker]

Sure, I never claimed this gives credibility to other ideas.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is then? What is the purpose for pointing out that dogmas exist in the sciences as they do anywhere?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is then? What is the purpose for pointing out that dogmas exist in the sciences as they do anywhere?

Because it's something I find interesting? Seems like a problem that shouldn't be swept away.