Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-l] Subject: Re: Is evolution something to believe in?

Hi;

There is little essay by Philip Kitchner, 'Beliving where we cannot prove' (in Philosophy of Science, 3rd. ed by Klemke et. al.) that nicely summarizes what John Denker and others are getting at. Some beliefs have more justification than others and we are justified in believing certain things, at least until we have new information to the contrary.

An example. Was Newton crazy for thinking ('believing') alchemy was going to pan out? Probably not. At the time what was known about chemistry was pretty confused. It was reasonable to think that maybe there was something to alchemy; maybe, after enough experiments it would lead to something. Who knew? Would a scientist today be crazy to believe alchemy is going to pan out? Yes. We have a much better alternative theory: chemistry.

A simpler example. The fire alarm goes off. I say yes, we are justified in believing that there is a fire. Is there really a fire? Don't know for sure (haven't seen the smoke) but it is entirely rational to run out of the building as if there is. In other words we are justified in believing there is, at least until we get other data (oh the fire department was testing the alarms).

All of our knowledge is contingent and this bothers people. Most people want their science (and religion) to be 'true' in some sort of absolute sense but taking that position means giving up on ever possibly changing your mind. Given the history of science, this would have been (and is) fatal to science.

Another piece of the belief puzzle is what counts as evidence. Some people with strong faith want to only look at evidence in support of their beliefs. As Popper pointed out, it is also crucial to weigh the evidence against a belief. One of the things I have against economics is that, economists seem very eager to give positive evidence in support of particular economic theories but don't spend much time looking at counter examples. People with strong religious beliefs seem to operate the same way; never mind the poverty, misery and cruelty in the world, the beauty in the world proves God's existence and that He is good.

kyle




------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <209860.68088.qm@web65616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


/************************************
Down with categorical imperative!
flutzpah@yahoo.com
************************************/

----- Original Message ----
From: Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2008 10:57:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?

At 21:16 -0700 4/2/08, curtis osterhoudt wrote:
In the context of this list, "belief" as it is taught to science
students would have to include a discussion of the criteria for
successful theories. Once that is covered, I don't see much problem
with teaching what theories may be "believed in" based on available
evidence, etc. Of course, as the sophistication of the students
advances, more and more details may be investigated (the _basis_ for
the beliefs).

It seems to me that some of us are missing Cliff's point, which is
that as scientists we don't (or shouldn't) "belive in" any theory or
concept.

Hugh




It seems to me (I believe!) that it's pretty sad that the word "belief" is now sometimes synonymous with "unproven faith", whereas it can just as easily (validly) be used in the context of giving credence to proved suppositions. In this way the word has suffered the same convolution as "theory" has in the mind of the laypublic. Those interested in science have lost the ability to use a heretofore perfectly good term without being accused of hypocrisy, or -- perhaps -- violating some "pure" Carneadean skepticism.




____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:21:30 -0700
From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Is evolution something to believe in?
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <47F4BDBA.5080200@av8n.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I agree with Cliff and Hugh and others that the question posed
by the Subject: line is an objectionable question.

I would perhaps explain the objections slightly differently.
To my ears, the word "belief" covers a wide range:

[---------------belief--------------]
[---blind faith---][-----knowledge--]

/\ -->
no increasing
evidence evidence

For present purposes, I will use "knowledge" to refer to things
we believe on the basis of good evidence. "Blind faith" refers
to things we believe in the absence of good evidence, or in
defiance of good evidence. Belief covers the whole range of
possibilities.

Therefore I would not say that "belief" necessarily refers to
unscientific belief. That's not the problem. The problem is
that you _don't know_ whether it refers to scientific or to
unscientific belief. Therefore no matter how you answer the
given question, you can expect to be misunderstood. We don't
need questions like this.

=========

Another problem with belief versus disbelief is that it is
generally treated as a categorical, yes/no question.

We should not generally think in such terms, and we should not
teach others to think in such terms. Usually it is better to
ask more nuanced questions about the weight of the evidence and
the range of validity.

In /some/ cases the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that
one can get away with categorical statements, but even then one
needs to be careful. For example, most people "believe" the sun
rises in the east. This seems like a well-founded scientific
belief. However it is not an entirely reliable fact, especially
in the arctic in the winter.

Closer to the topic of this thread, you have to be careful because
for every qualitatively correct explanation of evolution, there
are a thousand incorrect explanations. Consider the contrast:
-- The species evolves.
-- The individual does not evolve in the same way.
-- Rocks do not evolve in the same way.
(There is no good phylogenetic tree of rocks.)




------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 39, Issue 3
*************************************

--
------------------------------------------
'Violence is the last refuge of the
incompetent.'
Issac Asimov

kyle forinash 812-941-2039
kforinas@ius.edu
http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------