ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************
I have a theory that there may be a translation problem.
I can think of several definitions of "theory":
a) A mathematical theory. A mathematical theory is not a theory unless it
can be proven from uncontestable facts in the context of the type of math
being used.
b) A scientific theory. A scientific theory is only as good as the
predictions it makes. A science theory can be completely wrong (the
heliocentric universe), mostly wrong but still useful (the Bohr atom), a
little wrong in unimportant ways (Newtonian mechanics), narrowly correct
(uncertainty), or so far completely correct (evolution). Newtons laws of
mechanics were in the completely correct category until Einstein came along.
Maybe there will be clarifications of evolution, maybe not. I'd love to be
around until we find out.
c) A social theory. A social theory seems to be "an idea" that one wants to
test. Sometimes one will test an idea by the scientific method, sometimes by
"running it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes", sometimes by silently
blaming society for misunderstanding us so.
It seems to me that a key word in the current problem is the word "just". A
science-minded person probably wouldn't worry about evolution being
considered a theory. The word "theory" in science speech is not modifiable
by the word "just", however. It can only be modified by words like strong,
weak, incorrect, correct, disproven, useful. In fact, many theories in
science, such as evolution, really cannot be proven finally and
definitively. It is too complex, there is no way to gaurantee that there
will never be a case that is better explained in some other way.
What about the "theory" of Intelligent Design? Well, it does explain some
phenomena well: people feel better that God wanted them, in particular, to
exist; people can accept a certain level of ambiguity in their lives based
on faith; people might conduct themselves better with God watching over
their shoulders. It does a poor job of explaining a lot of things: how
bacteria become immune to antibiotics; why there are ticks; why we have an
appendix; what the dinosaurs were and where they went; and on, and on. So,
this theory seems to have a valuable social role, but works poorly as a
method for discussing natural philosophy (science).
Might the goal be to fight the word "just" and, if argue we must, get a
clarification of the objective of the discussion? Could the proponents of
Creationism be viscerally concerned about the Nihilism and social disorder
that often follows a profound belief in randomness as the source of life?
Could the proponents of science orthodoxy be viscerally concerned about the
trivialization of "theory" when used in conversation in a fashion that
degrades the (sometimes centuries of) extensive labor that has gone into
building a working theory?
Would a sticker that read "Evolution is a theory of how living species
change through time. It does not explain the meaning of life." be false?
But all of this is just a theory.
Tom.
-----Original Message-----
From: Informal Science Education Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jason Jay Stevens
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 2:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Randomness & Evolution
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related
institutions.
****************************************************************************
*
two points:
1
When I rant about the use of the word "random" and its cousins, I'm
talking particularly about of the lexicon of debate and persuasion.
I'm really just hoping for someone with more credibility than me to
jump up and champion a vocabulary that can set the terms of the
political debate such that our language helps make opposition
understand and agree rather than feel assaulted and alienated. Again,
I think the words "random," "chance" and "accident" place a severe
handicap on those who would argue in favor of evolution (or the
education of evolution, or what-have-you).
You can say "Genetic mutation appears random, but we know of certain
phenomenon that have various affects on the probabilities of mutation."
But I think it's wrong to declare randomness as the ultimate cause of
life and then go rush off to debate a Creationist. You're essentially
winning their argument for them, aren't you?
2
Now, clearly, many with a deeper scientific understanding than I hold
firm to the idea that randomness IS at the heart of certain phenomenon.
So all my ranting about vocabulary is moot. Randomness is truth.
I contend:
When I drop this apple, I can say with confidence that gravity brought
the apple into contact with the floor. Gravity is a universal,
fundamental force, and, theoretically, it's passes muster. No debate.
When I say genetic mutation is random, what I'm really saying is I
don't understand the mechanism of genetic mutation. Maybe I can't even
detect a mechanism, or maybe its too complex for me to use to generate
predictions, but these unfortunate circumstances do not preclude an
underlying mechanism or system of mechanisms. In a phrase, randomness
is NOT a universal, fundamental force, in and of itself.
Ultimately, when the big equation that models the cosmos is
discovered/uncovered/recovered [insert throat clearing noise], there
will be no "random" function the way there is a Planck constant.
That's Jason's understanding of science. He's no scientist, he just
reads a lot and loves to have dinner with well-educated people. He
hasn't, incidentally, won many converts, so maybe that 2x12 that
knocked him in the head twelve years ago really did do something to his
brain.
Next up: getting "Outlandish Design," a contender of "Intelligent
Design" that claims that life is just too weird to be adequately
described by science, into school curriculums, because students need to
be exposed to a variety of viewpoints on the origins of life.
& I promise to keep quiet on the whole randomness thing for a while
Hey hey hey,
Jason J
__
JasonJayStevens
Exhibits Design + Fabrication at the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum
[log in to unmask]
www.aahom.org
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at
http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]
|
