![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
As an uninvolved outsider (and a relative newbie to Wikipedia) I'd like to make a few observations if I may:
Turning now to this present article and the discussion here on its talkpage,
For what they may be worth, here are my immediate impressions:
I want to be clear that I'm not in any way attacking or "picking on" Thompsma. He has done an enormous amount of excellent work on this article. He had a concern about the appropriateness of one section in the article, and rather than simply jumping in and editing it, he brought it here to the talkpage for discussion. Unfortunately, he got off on the wrong foot and made a few mistakes, which caused the discussion to devolve into angry and non-substantive posts that did little to move the discussion along toward consensus.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Next, we come to a new section, Belief in theory. Wow, this really complicates things, simply because "belief" is as much of a bugaboo word as "theory" or "law" are, if not even more so. Throwing that word into the mix in the article would be a disaster.
Milkunderwood (
talk)
09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the section in the article itself, Evolution as fact not theory, it seems to me there are two different things going on here, but I have no authority at hand for support:
That is, in either case this distinction between theory as opposed to not theory is essentially a question of semantics rather than a true disagreement as to content. If others agree with my assessment, it would be useful to incorporate some phrasing to this effect into the article.
Milkunderwood (
talk)
18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have also argued that the approach advocated by Cobern in the previous article that focuses on belief in evolution is ill-advised on several grounds, principally because students may understand the term belief as synonymous with faith, opinion, or conviction and not as equivalent to the scientist's meaning of the term acceptance.
One of the most important differences between science and other means of understanding involves the intellectual criteria for acceptance or belief of what is proposed. For example, in its traditional religious sense, belief means acceptance of an idea without requiring evidence or proof of verification of that idea. In fact, strictly speaking, belief in this sense should be held even in the face of evidence to the contrary; people speak of their religious beliefs being "tested" by some personal misfortune, through which they maintain their beliefs. By contrast, acceptance of a proposal (hypothesis or theory) in science involves several steps:
- Recognition of the body of evidence that gave rise to the proposal
- Understanding the process of inference by which the proposal was created from the evidence
- Ability to reproduce the process by which the proposal was tested
- Ability to reach the same conclusion about the outcome of the test(s).
Furthermore, acceptance of the proposal is still provisional, because the testing process and the acquisition of new information can and do lead to revision of a hypothesis, or its replacement by a more effective alternative.[ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451189]
Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own...There is a great difference between the Idols of the human mind and the Ideas of the divine. That is to say, between certain empty dogmas, and the true signatures and marks set upon the works of creation as they are found in nature. (Francis Bacon - [6])
Bacon referred to these impediments as "idols," and I would argue that their intrusive inevitability fractures all dichotomous models invoked to separate science from other creative human activities. Bacon should therefore become the primary spokesperson for a nondichotomized concept of science as a quintessential human activity, inevitably emerging from the guts of our mental habits and social practices, and inexorably intertwined with foibles of human nature and contingencies of human history, not apart, but embedded—yet still operating to advance our genuine understanding of an external world and therefore to foster our access to "natural truth" under any meaningful definition of such a concept.(Gould, [7]).
The components of evolutionary biology dealing specifically with natural selection are “Darwinian” (as opposed to, say, “Lamarckian” mechanisms). Similarly, descriptions of gravity can legitimately be considered “Newtonian” or “Einsteinian” depending on which theory is being invoked. By contrast, the labels “Darwinism” for an acceptance of the fact of evolution and “Darwinists” for those who acknowledge common descent as a historical reality are used primarily as a pejorative description by antievolutionists. It is roughly equivalent to using a moniker such as “Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact. Scientists who study evolution are properly known as “evolutionary biologists” or sometimes “evolutionists”. [11]
Thompsma ( talk) 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead has gotten too long. The sentences on the germ theory of diseases goes off topic. I think the following sentences should be deleted from the lead: "For example, the germ theory of disease was similarly highly controversial when first proposed, yet it was validated in the late 19th century and is now a fundamental part of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. In another example, the theory of gravity unifies astronomical observations with observations about the acceleration with which an object falls to earth. Similarly," - This shortens the lead, keeps it on topic, and what remains is actually expanded on in the body of the text, whereas the germ theory of disease is not. Thompsma ( talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory [12]. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.
There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity [13], but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.
Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place" [14] and "Examples of N-D Es include clarification of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, differential survival and reproduction of organisms)" [15], but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book [16] If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.
I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also [17] for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood. Thompsma ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)." [22]: 2 ). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes [23] the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms. Thompsma ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This page suffers multiple fatal isues:
The hidden agenda of this page is to debunk "Creationists", by denying the possibility of other theories of the origin of the human species than "Evolution", particularly ones that involve alien infuences (or indeed, "god"). Evolution, it claims, is "fact", whereas it is no such thing, even in the context of the word "fact" in this page. Even Darwin later modified his own theory. To call Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species a "fact" is a gross and wilful misrepresentation of the scientific method. The scientific method deplores the arrogance of asserting any theory as facts, but instead allows for the acceptance of the most credible theory at the time. This permits alternative theories to be entertained even 100's of years later - for example, the theory of quantum mechanics vs Newtonian physics.
The page should be deleted. However, I invite others, particularly supporters of this action, to comment before commencing a third reccomendation. Abunyip ( talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The actual testing of a hypothesis, in scientific theories, is inductive not deductive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
"Scientific theories also contain speculation (abduction) at first but they are designed to be testable (deductive) and to develop heuristically (inductively) over time or through axillary claims, but the most important point is that they can be rejected by a critical test."
I once changed the opening sentence to this article as Evolution as fact and theory, which is correct. That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect and the experts in this field have published exactly this claim (namely Walter Bock [27] and Kirk Fitzhugh [28]). In several peer-reviewed publications - they have been quite explicit in stating that evolution is not a fact and it is not a theory either. Hence, I do not understand why there are editors that are trying to make claims that contradict the very nature of science itself. This relates back to a statement I made earlier: "We have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed."
"A single evolutionary theory as considered by Darwin does not exist, but several evolutionary theories occur with clear distinctions made between nomological and historical evolutionary theories, the latter being separated into a general and numerous special theories....If understood correctly, both nomological and historical evolution stand on their own as strongly corroborated scientific theories. Neither have to be further embellished as a fact or as true." [29] He even makes it more explicit: "If understood correctly, both forms of evolutionary theories stand on their own as corroborated scientific theories and should not be labeled as facts." Once you understand what theory is, it is truly an absurd notion to claim theory to be a fact as well. Evolutionary theory actually refers to many theories, whereas you might be able to interpret it as a fact if it is refers to the subject that hypotheses are trying to explain. If you study DNA, the facts are the DNA sequences themselves. If I build a phylogenetic tree out of those DNA sequences, does it now become a fact that they evolved according to the phylogeny inferred? No. The phylogeny itself is an explanatory hypothesis of the facts as they relate to each other. "Confirming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact...To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions." [30]
The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy [31]] may be helpful in this regard. On facts:
This first two sentences are of the contingent sort, the last sentence is another kind of fact. In this first sense, the contingent nature of facts, evolution is a fact. However, what meaning does this really state? The key is in the term "evolve", which is why these kinds of statements, while they appear to help us to understand the claims, are really not helpful in explaining anything of importance. If life evolves, then this means that there is "decent with modification", but who is evolving? Life is evolving. Hence, the fact refers to many different kinds of creatures where we find facts. So are facts nested sets, such that "It is a fact that birds have wings, that birds have wings is a fact" and "It is a fact that birds evolve, that birds evolve is a fact"? In this way, fact is an inexact reference to the nesting of the systems involved. Wings are objects than can be observed (the worlds data independent of theory), but when we talk about bird evolution we are really referring to the hypotheses that explain the facts (wings, feathers, DNA, Archaeopteryx, etc..). In referring to the explanatory hypotheses as a fact, we are doing a disservice to the facts and hypotheses, because hypotheses can never achieve absolute certainty and neither can facts, but why add duplicity to a hypotheses by stating it a fact as well? Facts are supposed to exist regardless of our perception of them, they just are and as such they lack the theory-laden components that we are trying to test in the first place. We're not in the practice of testing the facts, they are already accepted as clearly as a bird has a wing. Who in their right mind would set out to test that kind of hypothesis? Referring to theories or hypotheses as facts kills the entire purpose and philosophy of science as a perpetual machine of inquiry. Hence, evolution is not a fact - but a collection of many facts that are explained by the theories and hypotheses within.
Hence, I would like to change the lead sentence and actually a lot about this article to correctly align with the scientific philosophy on this matter as an encyclopaedic resource and to do away with this creationist shield nonsense that is going on in here. It is complete nonsense to turn the science into something you want it to be as a counter claim against the creationists. If you are doing this, you are falling into their trap and and spreading misinformation about the actual practice of science. I'd like to remind editors that quote mining is one of the favourite tactics of creationists, which is exactly the strategy employed herein. I'd like to delete those quotes and turn this into a real article without being labelled a creationists POV pusher by a few ignorant punks. Thompsma ( talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution as fact and theory is a statement (or variant thereof) that appears in numerous publications on biological evolution. The statement is framed in discourse on the fundamental nature of scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. It also occurs in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory".
I'll bite. Thompsma, I was taken aback by your original post under this "nope" heading, and your opening sentences "That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect ..." appeared to be obvious POV-pushing. You've now explained yourself much more clearly. If I might make a suggestion here, I would strikeout that part, and rephrase it. Also, Evolution as fact and theory works fine as an article title, but this is by itself not a "statement" or sentence.
You are absolutely correct that "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not a "true" statement, but that's not what the article says. Instead it says that this statement "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," and then goes on to explain why the statement is made in these publications.
I think we may all be agreed that scientists have observed that life forms have evolved through the past, and continue to do so; that evolution is a demonstrable and demonstrably natural phenomenon. It seems to me that while scientists and philosophers of science do have real and substantive disagreements amongst themselves about the nature of evolution and its mechanisms of operation, the more basic problem is semantic, involving how "fact", "theory", and indeed "evolution" should best be defined as terms of art. And it is these definitional problems that are seized upon by deniers of evolution in "claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory"." I think this is what the article is about, and should be brought to the fore. In fact, in my reading of it, I think the article addresses these semantic problems pretty well. My concern is more with the section (and subsections) Evolution as theory and fact in the literature, where I think it would be useful to re-emphasize that these distinctions are primarily - but not exclusively - semantic rather than substantive. It might also be useful to add a third subsection to accommodate Fitzhugh, who argues that in his understanding, "evolution" should not be considered to be a "fact". Milkunderwood ( talk) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution is often identified as either fact, theory, or both and sometimes neither. There are semantic differences between the way that these terms (fact and theory) are used in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular use. These semantic issues have lead to confusion in public discourse and healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution. Evolution as fact and theory is framed regularly in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory".
Slrubenstein - do you have any comments on the proposed changes I suggested above? I'd like to hear your insight. Thompsma ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution as fact and theory is framed regularly in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In the debates that ensure, evolution is identified as either fact, theory, or both and sometimes neither. There are semantic differences between the way that these terms (fact and theory) are used in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular use. These semantic issues have lead to confusion in public discourse and healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution.
Thompsma ( talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution as fact and theory is a frame often found in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as either fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse.
Healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution is sometimes framed as controversy that casts doubt on the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. ...
Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse.
I thought I would add this quote from the citation that Fitzhugh (2007) [39] uses to define fact. Fitzhugh makes the claim that that evolution is not a fact and this quote clarifies what he means by this:
Therefore, we should not call a true factual proposition a 'fact'. (The view that facts are theory-dependent or else empirical data rather than things "out there" is rampant in the philosophy of biology...In other words, a well-confirmed hypothesis, such as the hypothesis of descent with modification, is not a fact: it refers to a fact, i.e., a process or, more precisely, a number of processes. Similarly, there are no "scientific facts": only a procedure to attain knowledge can be scientific (or not), not the object of our investigation. Accordingly, scientists neither "collect" facts nor do they come up with or, worse, "construct" facts, but advance hypotheses and theories referring to or respresenting facts. Of course, some of these hypotheses may turn out ot be false, either for referring to purely imaginary objects, or for describing incorrectly real facts. : 34
Hence, I made some adjustments to the section on fact in light of this wp:v material. Thompsma ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Closed per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
I am Christian and not a "creationist." I believe that one being created the entire universe and all things in it. I call Him God. I bring this point up because I did not see the fact (as defined by the author's citations) that God created the universe adequately or properly discussed in this article. If special adaptation (which the author tries to label "evolution") is a fact, then surely the fact that God created the universe could be explained better in this article instead of just special adaptation being something observed by humans. Out of the many observations done by humans, it should also be noted that truthful testimony of billions in human history as to their relationship and interactions with God, His works in creation and interacting with His creation, and facts which support many of the theories of nearly all religions in the world should also be discussed in an "fact versus theory" article. "Creationism," then, seems to be a simplistic label for people who disagree with the author, whose bias towards Darwinist and evolutionist theories is quite evident. (The history of the word "creationist" is, of course, one of argumentation.) Furthermore, there is a clear thesis to this article, which is that "Evolution Theory should be called Evolution Fact." The links provided by the author lend to this thesis, of course, are controversial authors and commentators (who are not biology scientists), argumentation against the propped-up demon of "creationism," and even the more hateful and abusive ones that call dissenters to their views "misleading," among other insults. For this to be a credible Wikipedia entry, such propagandizing should be removed. Also, trying to prove that the theory of evolution is a fact is within the realm of free speech, but is not encyclopedic in any way. When the citations and references support calling Evolution Theory (what scientists call it) instead as "evolution fact," this becomes argumentative and not encyclopedic. Please remove all argumentation from this article or simply delete it and post it on an argumentative forum. Lastly, in regards to citations, there are several phantom citations throughout this Wikipedia entry. The readers seem expected to assume the premises of the author's arguments are true in order for the author to convince others that "evolution is a fact." These are too many list here, but reading this Wikipedia entry provides glaring instances of phantom citations. This is a common tactic in argumentative and persuasive writing, which is not what an encyclopedia should entertain. This Wikipedia entry is very much like the links that are used to support it: argumentative, abrasive, subversive, insulting, and ultimately just propaganda. I say propaganda not as an insult, but to point out the clear fact that as many, many people disagree with the thesis of this entry, we are to be derailed as buffoons. Not sure where I came up with that? Start first with this Talk Section and read the author's own words. They explain his motiviation for writing this argumentative entry. Second, click on the links he listed to supports his arguments. It will then be obvious to any open-minded reader that this Wikipedia entry is designed to (1) make a controversial statement and (2) rebut any view to the contrary (such as this odd label of "creationism"). This is why I call this Wikipedia entry propaganda. While propaganda has its place in human society, it should be noted that any encyclopedia is NOT a place for propaganda - even by definition. It seems as though the author thinks that Christians, like myself, who understand and know the fact that God created the universe, also fail to understand and know the fact of special adaptation. Really, the argumentative form of this Wikipedia entry seems like the author is ignorant of the fact that Christians and those he's likely label as "creationists" are usually only opposed to the statement that "humans evolved from primates." I certainly don't believe that humans adapted or "evolved" that way. Is this what the author wants to discuss? That it is a "fact" that humans evolved from primates? It seems like this is the begged question when reading this article. After all, no one anywhere seems to not know that species adapt. However, the vast majority of humans (and probably scientists) probably have a hard time believing that humans came from apes. (This is the controversy that seems to be harkoned in this Wikipedia entry, doesn't it?) I make that generalization knowing the fact that most humans know God or at least that He exists, and that He created all things. The vast majority. So it would be hard for most folks to swallow the argument that humans evolved from apes. In that regard, the author could then re-write this article, perhaps, in support of humans evolving from apes and hwo he thinks that is a fact. But as far as special adaptation is concerned... who are these phantom citations that disagree with that? There seems to be a lot of begging here. Please remove this article and put it somewhere else, or please expound upon the fact of God, the proper dispensation of arguments from others, and the real people who hold views that the author clearly wants to refute. No more "Evolution has been described as..." without proper citations. But, clearly, this kind of article does not belong in an encyclopedia. This was a brash attempt by a very brash author, and the Wikipedia moderators should get to work on this piece. Snootcher ( talk) 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
|
While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory [40]. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.
There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity [41], but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.
Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place" [42] and "Examples of N-D Es include clarification of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, differential survival and reproduction of organisms)" [43], but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book [44] If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.
I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also [45] for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood. Thompsma ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)." [50]: 2 ). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes [51] the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms. Thompsma ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was archived by MiszaBot; I have undone the archiving, believing that this discussion is still germane and useful.
Milkunderwood (
talk)
04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thompsma, there may be no citations easily available, if at all, but it still seems to me the basic problem with this opening:
is that while "evolution" is acknowledged to have different definitions, the basic controversy over "theory" and "fact" is also definitional much more than it is substantive. Seen in this light, there's considerably less disagreement amongst the quoted sources than it may appear. Essentially, Lewontin et al are simply saying the word "theory" has been hijacked by people who do not understand the term in its strict scientific sense, so let's sidestep the problem by discarding that term, and ground the concept of evolution solely as an observable fact. These are semantic rather than conceptual distinctions.
Then when you get down to Fitzhugh in that second section, who argues that evolution is theory not fact, you might want to stick the word "However" at the front, to distinguish him from the others, who are arguing the opposite. But Fitzhugh, again, is really arguing the semantics of "theory" and "fact" rather than the validity of evolution itself as an observable phenomenon. And Muller appears to agree with Fitzhugh, in saying "... in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact ..." [my emphasis].
I think it's important to distinguish for readers between the "phenomenology" (which in one sense or another is accepted by every one of these writers) of evolution, as opposed to these semantic distinctions or disagreements. But I have no idea what sources may be available to clarify this.
I wonder if you may disagree with this analysis. Milkunderwood ( talk) 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Closed per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
1) Eliminate the "Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!" thesis from this article. If the primary only definition of a fact is that it is highly probable to a point that few or no people doubt it, and that it might lead to other highly probable offerings, then "Creationism," as you call it, is as much a fact as is Evolution. Hence, there is no need for an argumentative thesis that is controversial in an encyclopedic entry. 2) Provide sources that are less controversal so that your entry can have more credibility. Blasphemous atheists going on about the brilliance of Evolution (like Richard Dawkins and others cited here) do this for a living and are quite popular. However, they act outside the scope of encyclopedia. More scrutible sources make the article more credible. 3) Provide sources that disagree that "Evolution is a fact!" and that "Creationism is not a fact!" Intelligent design theory, creation science, and perhaps a few other ideas come to mind. After all, evolution is both a controversial catch phrase intended to excite a bit of anxiety, as well as something that has never been recorded in reality to date. That is, no one has ever seen one species give birth to another species naturally, as if to evolve into a more survivable or enhanced species. If all we are talking about is special adaptations through generations, then we do not need to use the catch phrase of "evolution," which is also being used here as a retort to "creationism." Provide varying viewpoints to make this article more credible. 4) Biological science is a pretty large field. It also includes medicine. Hospitals, the scientific method, and most of the scientific theories that we have built upon in human history have come from the religiously oriented. The point here is that religion and science are a married couple. It seems that the author here might be trying to separate the two, denouncing one and propagating the other. It would make the article better to incorporate the three suggestions above with this fourth one in mind, I think. Please consider these four ideas, and please make this a better, less controversial article that is suited for an encyclopedia. There are always differing viewpoints out there, even in the biological science community. Only reporting what a few of those members have to say (especially the more inflammatory ones) makes this article less for an encyclopedia and more for a different forum. Thanks.
It's really quite ridiculous we're even entertaining this guy by allowing this discussion to continue. His viewpoints expressed thus far make it clear he has zero intention of improving the article in respect to science and is here only to push his religious point of view. That coupled with the fact that he obviously hasn't a clue what evolution is or how it pertains to modern biology. Unless anyone objects, I suggest we hat this and any other topic he posts that isn't STRICTLY about improving the article with SPECIFIC changes and sources. — raeky t 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
|
As a side note, this article does not discuss nor distinguish the "phenomena (or phenomenon) of evolution" from the fact (or facts) of evolution, which seems quite relevant to this topic. Facts, unlike phenomena, can be created "Statements state facts, and scientific facts do not come into being." [55] Phenomena are the things that can be observed as they come into profile, so we can "see" the gradual transition in whale evolution fossils when they are lined up according to pattern of similarity. The similarity is the phenomena and phylogenetic evolution provides the explanation. Notice that you can replace phenomena with fact at any point in time and the intended meaning of the sentence remains - it is the line of transition from experience to theory. Like facts, phenomena are in also in need of explanation and phenomena can also be facts. A scientist refers to many facts (phenomena?) to construct a theory (abduction). A signal (the phenomenon, the fact?) is extracted during the inductive experiment from a sea of noise (the data). Fitzhugh also understands facts as things or objects that exist independent of theory and theory of mind, but when perceptions come into mind (observation of phenomena) they themselves become facts. Hence, the confusion becomes even greater. Phenomena and fact can be divided into two main classes. A good reference that gives this definitional distinction on fact (but not phenomena) is written by Thomas B. Kinraide and R. Ford Denison. 2003. Strong Inference: The Way of Science, 65(6): 419-424
"Manifest Fact & Inferential Fact: Manifest: Capable of being easily understood or recognized at once by the mind: not obscure: obvious. Inference: The act of passing from one or more propositions ... considered as true to another the truth of which is believed to follow from that of the former."
Does anyone have any other insight into the distinction between fact and phenomena and/or thoughts on inclusion of this topic into this article. Many authors have written on the phenomena of evolution, so it seems justifiable to include a paragraph on this. However, it could get messy. Thompsma ( talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
“The Latest Face of Creationism,” by Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott, details the tactics of those agitating against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists’ arguments by using the term “theory” when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law. Robin A. Cox Scarborough, Ontario
A scientific law is a mere statement of the way things happen to happen. That is, if you perform act “Q” under given conditions “Z”, then you will get result “R.” ... Laws are not explanations of anything, they just describe what happens or they acknowledge the existence of particular repeatable patterns of what happens.
Far too many of us have been taught in school that a scientist, in the course of trying to figure something out, will first come up with a “hypothesis” (a guess or surmise—not necessarily even an “educated” guess). After this “hypothesis” has been tested by an experiment or two, and it still seems to work and hold up after a fashion, then it can graduate to the next level of likelihood—it becomes a theory. Then, when the theory is finally “proven to be true,” it becomes a law.
No theory ever becomes a law. No law ever becomes a theory. They are apples and oranges. Also, neither theories nor laws are necessarily to be thought of as more tentative or “less proven” than the other. Theories explain why the laws exist in the first place—atomic theory explains why the gas laws “work.” A given theory will subsume/explain a multiplicity of different laws. A theory can cause a law to be discarded. Relativity theory has resulted in Newton’s law of gravity having been shown to be not necessarily so. Theories are bigger and more powerful than laws.
Thompsma ( talk) 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)"The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires." ( Chamberlain, 1890) [58]
"Law is par excellence the thing that wants a reason...Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause; since the tendency to growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth." [59]
This is a weird article indeed. I agree with Milkunderwood (above) that this article and discussion is moving into "the beginnings of an essay on the philosophy of science." Is wikipedia a place to create an article for the specific purpose of combating irrational creationist arguments against science? The premise seems un-encyclopaedic to me. There are lots of problems with this article citing a bunch of authors stating that evolution is fact, evolution is theory, and evolution is neither, or one but not both. That kind of information - a list of quotes - is not very useful. I have done my best to improve on the content away from quote mining, but I am heading into a wide open sea of scientific philosophy unless we gain some bearing and direction on this article and its objectives. Hence, a set of terms could help. Here is a suggested draft for such terms that could be placed into the header of the talk pages similar to the FAQ in the man evolution article:
*Entries that are acceptable in this kind of article must be related to the philosophical understandings of fact and theory as it relates to evolution. There are no hard and fast rules for what is fact and what is theory in science under the rubric of the
scientific method. Philosophers have been contemplating concepts and tools of science for thousands of years. Some scientists are materialists, some are persistent reductionists, and some see fact through theory. These different philosophical underpinnings leads to diverse conceptions, understanding, and knowledge of fact and theory as it relates to evolution. These philosophical contradictions should not be capitalized upon as evidence of "trouble" with the theory or science, because the scientific method has proven its capacity for knowledge, understanding, and creativity. Scientists with diverse viewpoints. Debates among diversified philosophical schools of thought has been the hallmark of the scientific process throughout history, but some theories and methods have proven more effective with deep and lasting historical roots in particular disciplines.
*This article offers a resource for readers interested in learning about fact and theory as it applies to evolutionary biology. Evolution is not a singular concept and as such any claim that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is a theory" is so general in nature that it is unspecific in its meaning. Which fact or which theory of evolution is being referred too? If it is referring to evolution as a whole, what does this mean? This article provides the context of information that can help to answer these kinds of questions.
*Evolutionary biologists that subscribe to
scientific realism accept that there is an impressive body of empirical work in the life sciences that supports many of the claims put forward originally by Charles Darwin. In particular, his overarching claim that life has changed over time through a continuous line of decent with modification can be considered a manifest fact (see
[60]). This kind of scientific realism among evolutionary biologists is best expressed by Stephen J. Gould, who claimed that evolution was fact:
"On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms." [61]
![]() | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Evolution as fact and theory. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
FAQ's and Terms of Reference This article covers an advanced topic on evolutionary biology that falls under the philosophy of science. The FAQ covers questions that have been commonly raised in past discussions. In answering these questions, the answers provide general guidelines for editors and information to assist with aims of this kind of article.
To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
"On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms." [1]
I'm going to be bold and insert the FAQ.
I made some recent revisions to the first section on fact. However, I realize that the content is jargony and complex at this point. It is a skeletal foundation that needs the bones to be flushed out - simplified into a common vernacular that everyone can understand. The philosophy is complex, because the article was first written with the common mistake that fact is a highly confirmed hypothesis. This is a mistake that many evolutionary biologists have made - it is inconsistent within the much broader discussion on fact in both historical and contemporary philosophy of science. Douglass Futuyma makes this mistake, as do many others. Gould kinda makes this mistake, but he is crafty with his words so I'm still undecided on this. Evolutionary biologists who paid closer attention to the philosophy of science or write on the topic, as opposed to an experimentalist like Futuyma, (e.g., Ernst Mayr, Walter Bock, and Kirk Fitzhugh) have pointed out this mistake that keeps getting repeated. Anyway, the point I am making is that I have laid down a first foundation and will be working on this section and simplifying it in a way that everyone can understand clearly. I just needed to get the scaffold or plan laid out so that the concepts can be simplified from the text. If anyone would care to assist - a very simple introduction to these ideas can be read in the Kluge (1999) citation - freely accessible here. Many authors commenting on evolutionary theory make the distinction between universal and historical statements, but the Kluge (1999) reference is a shortened commentary on this and fairly straightforward to understand. Thompsma ( talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would post this link to a classic text on logic, by Adam Leroy Jones that gives a great chapter on fact - see page 13. I know that Arc has talked about fact in mathematics and I'm looking forward to this. I have read a fair amount of the philosophy of fact in math, physics, chemistry, and science in general - from philosophers, to investigations of their text. I wanted to raise this issue, because it is important to discuss on the concept of fact in evolution to identify the parallels of terminology in other sciences. The posted link above gives an overview of fact I have found most common across the disciplines. Thompsma ( talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This is mainly directed to Thompsma, although of course anyone can comment. I've made a (long) expansion of my comment at Talk:Evolution about question 4 of the FAQ. This is essentially a stream-of-consciousness analysis as I go through the answer. It should be read in a tone of “idle speculation to myself” and of course none of it is intended to reflect on the author in any way! :-)
Q4:How do we know if evolutionary scientists are correct or know enough to make claims about the factual or theoretical status of evolution?
Evolutionary biologists that subscribe to scientific realism
accept
that there is an impressive body of empirical work in the life sciences that supports many of the claims originally put forward by Charles Darwin.
In particular, his overarching claim that life has changed over time through a continuous line of decent with modification may be considered a manifest fact.
However, in science, facts of any kind are in need of explanation,
but scientists usually focus on surprising facts.
"The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires." ( Chamberlain, 1890) [73]
"Knowledge of the truth or domain of a hypothesis in natural science depends in the sane way on the imagination of those who test it." [74]
Thompsma ( talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Explanation is accomplished by a full disclosure of the facts after data has been collected, careful observations made, and creative hypotheses are formulated to test theories.
A rational understanding and explanation of the facts is acquired through the iterative and illuminating practice of experimentation and deductive reasoning.
The kind of scientific realism that is often adopted by evolutionary biologists
is aptly expressed by the late Stephen J. Gould, who was a notable evolutionary biologist of the 20th century to claim that evolution is a fact:
The greater certainty one holds for a hypothesis or theory subsequent to testing is nothing more than an indication of the ever-increasing understanding afforded by that hypothesis or theory of the facts we perceive or anticipate perceiving. Referring to hypotheses and theories as ‘facts’ is contrary to the explanatory nature of those concepts, and is a corruption of the intent to accurately represent the nature of acquiring understanding in the realm of science. [79]
Quote
Anyways, I hope this has helped. I’ve marked this article on my list of things to work on, but I probably won’t have time for anything but small changes for a while. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
In particular, Darwin's theory is based on overarching observations that: 1) the constituency of individual traits varies in populations over time, 2) there is a traceable line of inheritable decent, and 3) lineages of populations are modified across generations by the differential extinction versus survival of individuals that vary. These are the manifest facts of populations that Darwin proved to exist; i.e., "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" [4]: 35 . When framed as a theory of natural selection, the change or departure from an ancestral stock of individuals is logically entailed in the conclusion. [5] [6] The theory of natural selection has been called a meta-theory that has generated different research programs in evolutionary biology. However, natural selection is not the only theory to offer explanations for evolutionary phenomena. Specific theories are tested in various research programs, such as the synthesis of Mendelian genetics with natural selection, neutral theory of molecular evolution, group selection, and even ecology. [7]
The late Stephen J. Gould was a notable evolutionary biologist of the 20th century who claimed that evolution is a fact. [4] In another publication, Gould (2000) [1] clarified the nature of objective science in the context of realism, truth, and factual reality:
Hence, evolutionary biology is a science that can access reliable knowledge through rational inference on evolutionary theory as it relates to factual reality. Science produces knowledge of facts and demands publicly verifiable evidence of their existence and relevance to an inference. Evolutionary theory is based on a rational understanding and logical explanation of cause-effect relations referring to fact(s) or phenomena. Rational understanding is acquired through the iterative and illuminating practice of experimentation where deductive reasoning is applied and theories may perish. In particular, it is the puzzling observations or surprising facts that capture the most attention in critical tests of a theory. Evolutionary biologists make no exception to these scientific principles in their practice and claims about evolutionary facts and theories."On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms." [1]
This is just a first stab at the revision. Looking forward to comments. Thompsma ( talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
As an uninvolved outsider (and a relative newbie to Wikipedia) I'd like to make a few observations if I may:
Turning now to this present article and the discussion here on its talkpage,
For what they may be worth, here are my immediate impressions:
I want to be clear that I'm not in any way attacking or "picking on" Thompsma. He has done an enormous amount of excellent work on this article. He had a concern about the appropriateness of one section in the article, and rather than simply jumping in and editing it, he brought it here to the talkpage for discussion. Unfortunately, he got off on the wrong foot and made a few mistakes, which caused the discussion to devolve into angry and non-substantive posts that did little to move the discussion along toward consensus.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Next, we come to a new section, Belief in theory. Wow, this really complicates things, simply because "belief" is as much of a bugaboo word as "theory" or "law" are, if not even more so. Throwing that word into the mix in the article would be a disaster.
Milkunderwood (
talk)
09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Concerning the section in the article itself, Evolution as fact not theory, it seems to me there are two different things going on here, but I have no authority at hand for support:
That is, in either case this distinction between theory as opposed to not theory is essentially a question of semantics rather than a true disagreement as to content. If others agree with my assessment, it would be useful to incorporate some phrasing to this effect into the article.
Milkunderwood (
talk)
18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have also argued that the approach advocated by Cobern in the previous article that focuses on belief in evolution is ill-advised on several grounds, principally because students may understand the term belief as synonymous with faith, opinion, or conviction and not as equivalent to the scientist's meaning of the term acceptance.
One of the most important differences between science and other means of understanding involves the intellectual criteria for acceptance or belief of what is proposed. For example, in its traditional religious sense, belief means acceptance of an idea without requiring evidence or proof of verification of that idea. In fact, strictly speaking, belief in this sense should be held even in the face of evidence to the contrary; people speak of their religious beliefs being "tested" by some personal misfortune, through which they maintain their beliefs. By contrast, acceptance of a proposal (hypothesis or theory) in science involves several steps:
- Recognition of the body of evidence that gave rise to the proposal
- Understanding the process of inference by which the proposal was created from the evidence
- Ability to reproduce the process by which the proposal was tested
- Ability to reach the same conclusion about the outcome of the test(s).
Furthermore, acceptance of the proposal is still provisional, because the testing process and the acquisition of new information can and do lead to revision of a hypothesis, or its replacement by a more effective alternative.[ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4451189]
Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own...There is a great difference between the Idols of the human mind and the Ideas of the divine. That is to say, between certain empty dogmas, and the true signatures and marks set upon the works of creation as they are found in nature. (Francis Bacon - [6])
Bacon referred to these impediments as "idols," and I would argue that their intrusive inevitability fractures all dichotomous models invoked to separate science from other creative human activities. Bacon should therefore become the primary spokesperson for a nondichotomized concept of science as a quintessential human activity, inevitably emerging from the guts of our mental habits and social practices, and inexorably intertwined with foibles of human nature and contingencies of human history, not apart, but embedded—yet still operating to advance our genuine understanding of an external world and therefore to foster our access to "natural truth" under any meaningful definition of such a concept.(Gould, [7]).
The components of evolutionary biology dealing specifically with natural selection are “Darwinian” (as opposed to, say, “Lamarckian” mechanisms). Similarly, descriptions of gravity can legitimately be considered “Newtonian” or “Einsteinian” depending on which theory is being invoked. By contrast, the labels “Darwinism” for an acceptance of the fact of evolution and “Darwinists” for those who acknowledge common descent as a historical reality are used primarily as a pejorative description by antievolutionists. It is roughly equivalent to using a moniker such as “Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact. Scientists who study evolution are properly known as “evolutionary biologists” or sometimes “evolutionists”. [11]
Thompsma ( talk) 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The lead has gotten too long. The sentences on the germ theory of diseases goes off topic. I think the following sentences should be deleted from the lead: "For example, the germ theory of disease was similarly highly controversial when first proposed, yet it was validated in the late 19th century and is now a fundamental part of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. In another example, the theory of gravity unifies astronomical observations with observations about the acceleration with which an object falls to earth. Similarly," - This shortens the lead, keeps it on topic, and what remains is actually expanded on in the body of the text, whereas the germ theory of disease is not. Thompsma ( talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory [12]. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.
There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity [13], but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.
Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place" [14] and "Examples of N-D Es include clarification of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, differential survival and reproduction of organisms)" [15], but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book [16] If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.
I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also [17] for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood. Thompsma ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)." [22]: 2 ). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes [23] the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms. Thompsma ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This page suffers multiple fatal isues:
The hidden agenda of this page is to debunk "Creationists", by denying the possibility of other theories of the origin of the human species than "Evolution", particularly ones that involve alien infuences (or indeed, "god"). Evolution, it claims, is "fact", whereas it is no such thing, even in the context of the word "fact" in this page. Even Darwin later modified his own theory. To call Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species a "fact" is a gross and wilful misrepresentation of the scientific method. The scientific method deplores the arrogance of asserting any theory as facts, but instead allows for the acceptance of the most credible theory at the time. This permits alternative theories to be entertained even 100's of years later - for example, the theory of quantum mechanics vs Newtonian physics.
The page should be deleted. However, I invite others, particularly supporters of this action, to comment before commencing a third reccomendation. Abunyip ( talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The actual testing of a hypothesis, in scientific theories, is inductive not deductive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
"Scientific theories also contain speculation (abduction) at first but they are designed to be testable (deductive) and to develop heuristically (inductively) over time or through axillary claims, but the most important point is that they can be rejected by a critical test."
I once changed the opening sentence to this article as Evolution as fact and theory, which is correct. That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect and the experts in this field have published exactly this claim (namely Walter Bock [27] and Kirk Fitzhugh [28]). In several peer-reviewed publications - they have been quite explicit in stating that evolution is not a fact and it is not a theory either. Hence, I do not understand why there are editors that are trying to make claims that contradict the very nature of science itself. This relates back to a statement I made earlier: "We have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed."
"A single evolutionary theory as considered by Darwin does not exist, but several evolutionary theories occur with clear distinctions made between nomological and historical evolutionary theories, the latter being separated into a general and numerous special theories....If understood correctly, both nomological and historical evolution stand on their own as strongly corroborated scientific theories. Neither have to be further embellished as a fact or as true." [29] He even makes it more explicit: "If understood correctly, both forms of evolutionary theories stand on their own as corroborated scientific theories and should not be labeled as facts." Once you understand what theory is, it is truly an absurd notion to claim theory to be a fact as well. Evolutionary theory actually refers to many theories, whereas you might be able to interpret it as a fact if it is refers to the subject that hypotheses are trying to explain. If you study DNA, the facts are the DNA sequences themselves. If I build a phylogenetic tree out of those DNA sequences, does it now become a fact that they evolved according to the phylogeny inferred? No. The phylogeny itself is an explanatory hypothesis of the facts as they relate to each other. "Confirming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact...To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions." [30]
The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy [31]] may be helpful in this regard. On facts:
This first two sentences are of the contingent sort, the last sentence is another kind of fact. In this first sense, the contingent nature of facts, evolution is a fact. However, what meaning does this really state? The key is in the term "evolve", which is why these kinds of statements, while they appear to help us to understand the claims, are really not helpful in explaining anything of importance. If life evolves, then this means that there is "decent with modification", but who is evolving? Life is evolving. Hence, the fact refers to many different kinds of creatures where we find facts. So are facts nested sets, such that "It is a fact that birds have wings, that birds have wings is a fact" and "It is a fact that birds evolve, that birds evolve is a fact"? In this way, fact is an inexact reference to the nesting of the systems involved. Wings are objects than can be observed (the worlds data independent of theory), but when we talk about bird evolution we are really referring to the hypotheses that explain the facts (wings, feathers, DNA, Archaeopteryx, etc..). In referring to the explanatory hypotheses as a fact, we are doing a disservice to the facts and hypotheses, because hypotheses can never achieve absolute certainty and neither can facts, but why add duplicity to a hypotheses by stating it a fact as well? Facts are supposed to exist regardless of our perception of them, they just are and as such they lack the theory-laden components that we are trying to test in the first place. We're not in the practice of testing the facts, they are already accepted as clearly as a bird has a wing. Who in their right mind would set out to test that kind of hypothesis? Referring to theories or hypotheses as facts kills the entire purpose and philosophy of science as a perpetual machine of inquiry. Hence, evolution is not a fact - but a collection of many facts that are explained by the theories and hypotheses within.
Hence, I would like to change the lead sentence and actually a lot about this article to correctly align with the scientific philosophy on this matter as an encyclopaedic resource and to do away with this creationist shield nonsense that is going on in here. It is complete nonsense to turn the science into something you want it to be as a counter claim against the creationists. If you are doing this, you are falling into their trap and and spreading misinformation about the actual practice of science. I'd like to remind editors that quote mining is one of the favourite tactics of creationists, which is exactly the strategy employed herein. I'd like to delete those quotes and turn this into a real article without being labelled a creationists POV pusher by a few ignorant punks. Thompsma ( talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution as fact and theory is a statement (or variant thereof) that appears in numerous publications on biological evolution. The statement is framed in discourse on the fundamental nature of scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. It also occurs in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory".
I'll bite. Thompsma, I was taken aback by your original post under this "nope" heading, and your opening sentences "That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect ..." appeared to be obvious POV-pushing. You've now explained yourself much more clearly. If I might make a suggestion here, I would strikeout that part, and rephrase it. Also, Evolution as fact and theory works fine as an article title, but this is by itself not a "statement" or sentence.
You are absolutely correct that "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not a "true" statement, but that's not what the article says. Instead it says that this statement "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," and then goes on to explain why the statement is made in these publications.
I think we may all be agreed that scientists have observed that life forms have evolved through the past, and continue to do so; that evolution is a demonstrable and demonstrably natural phenomenon. It seems to me that while scientists and philosophers of science do have real and substantive disagreements amongst themselves about the nature of evolution and its mechanisms of operation, the more basic problem is semantic, involving how "fact", "theory", and indeed "evolution" should best be defined as terms of art. And it is these definitional problems that are seized upon by deniers of evolution in "claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory"." I think this is what the article is about, and should be brought to the fore. In fact, in my reading of it, I think the article addresses these semantic problems pretty well. My concern is more with the section (and subsections) Evolution as theory and fact in the literature, where I think it would be useful to re-emphasize that these distinctions are primarily - but not exclusively - semantic rather than substantive. It might also be useful to add a third subsection to accommodate Fitzhugh, who argues that in his understanding, "evolution" should not be considered to be a "fact". Milkunderwood ( talk) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution is often identified as either fact, theory, or both and sometimes neither. There are semantic differences between the way that these terms (fact and theory) are used in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular use. These semantic issues have lead to confusion in public discourse and healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution. Evolution as fact and theory is framed regularly in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory".
Slrubenstein - do you have any comments on the proposed changes I suggested above? I'd like to hear your insight. Thompsma ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution as fact and theory is framed regularly in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In the debates that ensure, evolution is identified as either fact, theory, or both and sometimes neither. There are semantic differences between the way that these terms (fact and theory) are used in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular use. These semantic issues have lead to confusion in public discourse and healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution.
Thompsma ( talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Evolution as fact and theory is a frame often found in discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. The topic of evolution as fact and theory also occurs regularly in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as either fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse.
Healthy debate in the scientific literature on the topic of evolution is sometimes framed as controversy that casts doubt on the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. ...
Casting evolution as fact and theory occurs regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms, primarily in response to creationist claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory". In ensuing debates, evolution is identified as fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither. Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse.
I thought I would add this quote from the citation that Fitzhugh (2007) [39] uses to define fact. Fitzhugh makes the claim that that evolution is not a fact and this quote clarifies what he means by this:
Therefore, we should not call a true factual proposition a 'fact'. (The view that facts are theory-dependent or else empirical data rather than things "out there" is rampant in the philosophy of biology...In other words, a well-confirmed hypothesis, such as the hypothesis of descent with modification, is not a fact: it refers to a fact, i.e., a process or, more precisely, a number of processes. Similarly, there are no "scientific facts": only a procedure to attain knowledge can be scientific (or not), not the object of our investigation. Accordingly, scientists neither "collect" facts nor do they come up with or, worse, "construct" facts, but advance hypotheses and theories referring to or respresenting facts. Of course, some of these hypotheses may turn out ot be false, either for referring to purely imaginary objects, or for describing incorrectly real facts. : 34
Hence, I made some adjustments to the section on fact in light of this wp:v material. Thompsma ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Closed per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
I am Christian and not a "creationist." I believe that one being created the entire universe and all things in it. I call Him God. I bring this point up because I did not see the fact (as defined by the author's citations) that God created the universe adequately or properly discussed in this article. If special adaptation (which the author tries to label "evolution") is a fact, then surely the fact that God created the universe could be explained better in this article instead of just special adaptation being something observed by humans. Out of the many observations done by humans, it should also be noted that truthful testimony of billions in human history as to their relationship and interactions with God, His works in creation and interacting with His creation, and facts which support many of the theories of nearly all religions in the world should also be discussed in an "fact versus theory" article. "Creationism," then, seems to be a simplistic label for people who disagree with the author, whose bias towards Darwinist and evolutionist theories is quite evident. (The history of the word "creationist" is, of course, one of argumentation.) Furthermore, there is a clear thesis to this article, which is that "Evolution Theory should be called Evolution Fact." The links provided by the author lend to this thesis, of course, are controversial authors and commentators (who are not biology scientists), argumentation against the propped-up demon of "creationism," and even the more hateful and abusive ones that call dissenters to their views "misleading," among other insults. For this to be a credible Wikipedia entry, such propagandizing should be removed. Also, trying to prove that the theory of evolution is a fact is within the realm of free speech, but is not encyclopedic in any way. When the citations and references support calling Evolution Theory (what scientists call it) instead as "evolution fact," this becomes argumentative and not encyclopedic. Please remove all argumentation from this article or simply delete it and post it on an argumentative forum. Lastly, in regards to citations, there are several phantom citations throughout this Wikipedia entry. The readers seem expected to assume the premises of the author's arguments are true in order for the author to convince others that "evolution is a fact." These are too many list here, but reading this Wikipedia entry provides glaring instances of phantom citations. This is a common tactic in argumentative and persuasive writing, which is not what an encyclopedia should entertain. This Wikipedia entry is very much like the links that are used to support it: argumentative, abrasive, subversive, insulting, and ultimately just propaganda. I say propaganda not as an insult, but to point out the clear fact that as many, many people disagree with the thesis of this entry, we are to be derailed as buffoons. Not sure where I came up with that? Start first with this Talk Section and read the author's own words. They explain his motiviation for writing this argumentative entry. Second, click on the links he listed to supports his arguments. It will then be obvious to any open-minded reader that this Wikipedia entry is designed to (1) make a controversial statement and (2) rebut any view to the contrary (such as this odd label of "creationism"). This is why I call this Wikipedia entry propaganda. While propaganda has its place in human society, it should be noted that any encyclopedia is NOT a place for propaganda - even by definition. It seems as though the author thinks that Christians, like myself, who understand and know the fact that God created the universe, also fail to understand and know the fact of special adaptation. Really, the argumentative form of this Wikipedia entry seems like the author is ignorant of the fact that Christians and those he's likely label as "creationists" are usually only opposed to the statement that "humans evolved from primates." I certainly don't believe that humans adapted or "evolved" that way. Is this what the author wants to discuss? That it is a "fact" that humans evolved from primates? It seems like this is the begged question when reading this article. After all, no one anywhere seems to not know that species adapt. However, the vast majority of humans (and probably scientists) probably have a hard time believing that humans came from apes. (This is the controversy that seems to be harkoned in this Wikipedia entry, doesn't it?) I make that generalization knowing the fact that most humans know God or at least that He exists, and that He created all things. The vast majority. So it would be hard for most folks to swallow the argument that humans evolved from apes. In that regard, the author could then re-write this article, perhaps, in support of humans evolving from apes and hwo he thinks that is a fact. But as far as special adaptation is concerned... who are these phantom citations that disagree with that? There seems to be a lot of begging here. Please remove this article and put it somewhere else, or please expound upon the fact of God, the proper dispensation of arguments from others, and the real people who hold views that the author clearly wants to refute. No more "Evolution has been described as..." without proper citations. But, clearly, this kind of article does not belong in an encyclopedia. This was a brash attempt by a very brash author, and the Wikipedia moderators should get to work on this piece. Snootcher ( talk) 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
|
While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory [40]. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.
There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity [41], but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.
Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place" [42] and "Examples of N-D Es include clarification of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, differential survival and reproduction of organisms)" [43], but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book [44] If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.
I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also [45] for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood. Thompsma ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)." [50]: 2 ). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes [51] the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms. Thompsma ( talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was archived by MiszaBot; I have undone the archiving, believing that this discussion is still germane and useful.
Milkunderwood (
talk)
04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thompsma, there may be no citations easily available, if at all, but it still seems to me the basic problem with this opening:
is that while "evolution" is acknowledged to have different definitions, the basic controversy over "theory" and "fact" is also definitional much more than it is substantive. Seen in this light, there's considerably less disagreement amongst the quoted sources than it may appear. Essentially, Lewontin et al are simply saying the word "theory" has been hijacked by people who do not understand the term in its strict scientific sense, so let's sidestep the problem by discarding that term, and ground the concept of evolution solely as an observable fact. These are semantic rather than conceptual distinctions.
Then when you get down to Fitzhugh in that second section, who argues that evolution is theory not fact, you might want to stick the word "However" at the front, to distinguish him from the others, who are arguing the opposite. But Fitzhugh, again, is really arguing the semantics of "theory" and "fact" rather than the validity of evolution itself as an observable phenomenon. And Muller appears to agree with Fitzhugh, in saying "... in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact ..." [my emphasis].
I think it's important to distinguish for readers between the "phenomenology" (which in one sense or another is accepted by every one of these writers) of evolution, as opposed to these semantic distinctions or disagreements. But I have no idea what sources may be available to clarify this.
I wonder if you may disagree with this analysis. Milkunderwood ( talk) 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Closed per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
1) Eliminate the "Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!" thesis from this article. If the primary only definition of a fact is that it is highly probable to a point that few or no people doubt it, and that it might lead to other highly probable offerings, then "Creationism," as you call it, is as much a fact as is Evolution. Hence, there is no need for an argumentative thesis that is controversial in an encyclopedic entry. 2) Provide sources that are less controversal so that your entry can have more credibility. Blasphemous atheists going on about the brilliance of Evolution (like Richard Dawkins and others cited here) do this for a living and are quite popular. However, they act outside the scope of encyclopedia. More scrutible sources make the article more credible. 3) Provide sources that disagree that "Evolution is a fact!" and that "Creationism is not a fact!" Intelligent design theory, creation science, and perhaps a few other ideas come to mind. After all, evolution is both a controversial catch phrase intended to excite a bit of anxiety, as well as something that has never been recorded in reality to date. That is, no one has ever seen one species give birth to another species naturally, as if to evolve into a more survivable or enhanced species. If all we are talking about is special adaptations through generations, then we do not need to use the catch phrase of "evolution," which is also being used here as a retort to "creationism." Provide varying viewpoints to make this article more credible. 4) Biological science is a pretty large field. It also includes medicine. Hospitals, the scientific method, and most of the scientific theories that we have built upon in human history have come from the religiously oriented. The point here is that religion and science are a married couple. It seems that the author here might be trying to separate the two, denouncing one and propagating the other. It would make the article better to incorporate the three suggestions above with this fourth one in mind, I think. Please consider these four ideas, and please make this a better, less controversial article that is suited for an encyclopedia. There are always differing viewpoints out there, even in the biological science community. Only reporting what a few of those members have to say (especially the more inflammatory ones) makes this article less for an encyclopedia and more for a different forum. Thanks.
It's really quite ridiculous we're even entertaining this guy by allowing this discussion to continue. His viewpoints expressed thus far make it clear he has zero intention of improving the article in respect to science and is here only to push his religious point of view. That coupled with the fact that he obviously hasn't a clue what evolution is or how it pertains to modern biology. Unless anyone objects, I suggest we hat this and any other topic he posts that isn't STRICTLY about improving the article with SPECIFIC changes and sources. — raeky t 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
|
As a side note, this article does not discuss nor distinguish the "phenomena (or phenomenon) of evolution" from the fact (or facts) of evolution, which seems quite relevant to this topic. Facts, unlike phenomena, can be created "Statements state facts, and scientific facts do not come into being." [55] Phenomena are the things that can be observed as they come into profile, so we can "see" the gradual transition in whale evolution fossils when they are lined up according to pattern of similarity. The similarity is the phenomena and phylogenetic evolution provides the explanation. Notice that you can replace phenomena with fact at any point in time and the intended meaning of the sentence remains - it is the line of transition from experience to theory. Like facts, phenomena are in also in need of explanation and phenomena can also be facts. A scientist refers to many facts (phenomena?) to construct a theory (abduction). A signal (the phenomenon, the fact?) is extracted during the inductive experiment from a sea of noise (the data). Fitzhugh also understands facts as things or objects that exist independent of theory and theory of mind, but when perceptions come into mind (observation of phenomena) they themselves become facts. Hence, the confusion becomes even greater. Phenomena and fact can be divided into two main classes. A good reference that gives this definitional distinction on fact (but not phenomena) is written by Thomas B. Kinraide and R. Ford Denison. 2003. Strong Inference: The Way of Science, 65(6): 419-424
"Manifest Fact & Inferential Fact: Manifest: Capable of being easily understood or recognized at once by the mind: not obscure: obvious. Inference: The act of passing from one or more propositions ... considered as true to another the truth of which is believed to follow from that of the former."
Does anyone have any other insight into the distinction between fact and phenomena and/or thoughts on inclusion of this topic into this article. Many authors have written on the phenomena of evolution, so it seems justifiable to include a paragraph on this. However, it could get messy. Thompsma ( talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
“The Latest Face of Creationism,” by Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott, details the tactics of those agitating against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists’ arguments by using the term “theory” when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law. Robin A. Cox Scarborough, Ontario
A scientific law is a mere statement of the way things happen to happen. That is, if you perform act “Q” under given conditions “Z”, then you will get result “R.” ... Laws are not explanations of anything, they just describe what happens or they acknowledge the existence of particular repeatable patterns of what happens.
Far too many of us have been taught in school that a scientist, in the course of trying to figure something out, will first come up with a “hypothesis” (a guess or surmise—not necessarily even an “educated” guess). After this “hypothesis” has been tested by an experiment or two, and it still seems to work and hold up after a fashion, then it can graduate to the next level of likelihood—it becomes a theory. Then, when the theory is finally “proven to be true,” it becomes a law.
No theory ever becomes a law. No law ever becomes a theory. They are apples and oranges. Also, neither theories nor laws are necessarily to be thought of as more tentative or “less proven” than the other. Theories explain why the laws exist in the first place—atomic theory explains why the gas laws “work.” A given theory will subsume/explain a multiplicity of different laws. A theory can cause a law to be discarded. Relativity theory has resulted in Newton’s law of gravity having been shown to be not necessarily so. Theories are bigger and more powerful than laws.
Thompsma ( talk) 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)"The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires." ( Chamberlain, 1890) [58]
"Law is par excellence the thing that wants a reason...Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause; since the tendency to growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth." [59]
This is a weird article indeed. I agree with Milkunderwood (above) that this article and discussion is moving into "the beginnings of an essay on the philosophy of science." Is wikipedia a place to create an article for the specific purpose of combating irrational creationist arguments against science? The premise seems un-encyclopaedic to me. There are lots of problems with this article citing a bunch of authors stating that evolution is fact, evolution is theory, and evolution is neither, or one but not both. That kind of information - a list of quotes - is not very useful. I have done my best to improve on the content away from quote mining, but I am heading into a wide open sea of scientific philosophy unless we gain some bearing and direction on this article and its objectives. Hence, a set of terms could help. Here is a suggested draft for such terms that could be placed into the header of the talk pages similar to the FAQ in the man evolution article:
*Entries that are acceptable in this kind of article must be related to the philosophical understandings of fact and theory as it relates to evolution. There are no hard and fast rules for what is fact and what is theory in science under the rubric of the
scientific method. Philosophers have been contemplating concepts and tools of science for thousands of years. Some scientists are materialists, some are persistent reductionists, and some see fact through theory. These different philosophical underpinnings leads to diverse conceptions, understanding, and knowledge of fact and theory as it relates to evolution. These philosophical contradictions should not be capitalized upon as evidence of "trouble" with the theory or science, because the scientific method has proven its capacity for knowledge, understanding, and creativity. Scientists with diverse viewpoints. Debates among diversified philosophical schools of thought has been the hallmark of the scientific process throughout history, but some theories and methods have proven more effective with deep and lasting historical roots in particular disciplines.
*This article offers a resource for readers interested in learning about fact and theory as it applies to evolutionary biology. Evolution is not a singular concept and as such any claim that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is a theory" is so general in nature that it is unspecific in its meaning. Which fact or which theory of evolution is being referred too? If it is referring to evolution as a whole, what does this mean? This article provides the context of information that can help to answer these kinds of questions.
*Evolutionary biologists that subscribe to
scientific realism accept that there is an impressive body of empirical work in the life sciences that supports many of the claims put forward originally by Charles Darwin. In particular, his overarching claim that life has changed over time through a continuous line of decent with modification can be considered a manifest fact (see
[60]). This kind of scientific realism among evolutionary biologists is best expressed by Stephen J. Gould, who claimed that evolution was fact:
"On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms." [61]
![]() | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Evolution as fact and theory. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
FAQ's and Terms of Reference This article covers an advanced topic on evolutionary biology that falls under the philosophy of science. The FAQ covers questions that have been commonly raised in past discussions. In answering these questions, the answers provide general guidelines for editors and information to assist with aims of this kind of article.
To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
"On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms." [1]
I'm going to be bold and insert the FAQ.
I made some recent revisions to the first section on fact. However, I realize that the content is jargony and complex at this point. It is a skeletal foundation that needs the bones to be flushed out - simplified into a common vernacular that everyone can understand. The philosophy is complex, because the article was first written with the common mistake that fact is a highly confirmed hypothesis. This is a mistake that many evolutionary biologists have made - it is inconsistent within the much broader discussion on fact in both historical and contemporary philosophy of science. Douglass Futuyma makes this mistake, as do many others. Gould kinda makes this mistake, but he is crafty with his words so I'm still undecided on this. Evolutionary biologists who paid closer attention to the philosophy of science or write on the topic, as opposed to an experimentalist like Futuyma, (e.g., Ernst Mayr, Walter Bock, and Kirk Fitzhugh) have pointed out this mistake that keeps getting repeated. Anyway, the point I am making is that I have laid down a first foundation and will be working on this section and simplifying it in a way that everyone can understand clearly. I just needed to get the scaffold or plan laid out so that the concepts can be simplified from the text. If anyone would care to assist - a very simple introduction to these ideas can be read in the Kluge (1999) citation - freely accessible here. Many authors commenting on evolutionary theory make the distinction between universal and historical statements, but the Kluge (1999) reference is a shortened commentary on this and fairly straightforward to understand. Thompsma ( talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought I would post this link to a classic text on logic, by Adam Leroy Jones that gives a great chapter on fact - see page 13. I know that Arc has talked about fact in mathematics and I'm looking forward to this. I have read a fair amount of the philosophy of fact in math, physics, chemistry, and science in general - from philosophers, to investigations of their text. I wanted to raise this issue, because it is important to discuss on the concept of fact in evolution to identify the parallels of terminology in other sciences. The posted link above gives an overview of fact I have found most common across the disciplines. Thompsma ( talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This is mainly directed to Thompsma, although of course anyone can comment. I've made a (long) expansion of my comment at Talk:Evolution about question 4 of the FAQ. This is essentially a stream-of-consciousness analysis as I go through the answer. It should be read in a tone of “idle speculation to myself” and of course none of it is intended to reflect on the author in any way! :-)
Q4:How do we know if evolutionary scientists are correct or know enough to make claims about the factual or theoretical status of evolution?
Evolutionary biologists that subscribe to scientific realism
accept
that there is an impressive body of empirical work in the life sciences that supports many of the claims originally put forward by Charles Darwin.
In particular, his overarching claim that life has changed over time through a continuous line of decent with modification may be considered a manifest fact.
However, in science, facts of any kind are in need of explanation,
but scientists usually focus on surprising facts.
"The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires." ( Chamberlain, 1890) [73]
"Knowledge of the truth or domain of a hypothesis in natural science depends in the sane way on the imagination of those who test it." [74]
Thompsma ( talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Explanation is accomplished by a full disclosure of the facts after data has been collected, careful observations made, and creative hypotheses are formulated to test theories.
A rational understanding and explanation of the facts is acquired through the iterative and illuminating practice of experimentation and deductive reasoning.
The kind of scientific realism that is often adopted by evolutionary biologists
is aptly expressed by the late Stephen J. Gould, who was a notable evolutionary biologist of the 20th century to claim that evolution is a fact:
The greater certainty one holds for a hypothesis or theory subsequent to testing is nothing more than an indication of the ever-increasing understanding afforded by that hypothesis or theory of the facts we perceive or anticipate perceiving. Referring to hypotheses and theories as ‘facts’ is contrary to the explanatory nature of those concepts, and is a corruption of the intent to accurately represent the nature of acquiring understanding in the realm of science. [79]
Quote
Anyways, I hope this has helped. I’ve marked this article on my list of things to work on, but I probably won’t have time for anything but small changes for a while. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
In particular, Darwin's theory is based on overarching observations that: 1) the constituency of individual traits varies in populations over time, 2) there is a traceable line of inheritable decent, and 3) lineages of populations are modified across generations by the differential extinction versus survival of individuals that vary. These are the manifest facts of populations that Darwin proved to exist; i.e., "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" [4]: 35 . When framed as a theory of natural selection, the change or departure from an ancestral stock of individuals is logically entailed in the conclusion. [5] [6] The theory of natural selection has been called a meta-theory that has generated different research programs in evolutionary biology. However, natural selection is not the only theory to offer explanations for evolutionary phenomena. Specific theories are tested in various research programs, such as the synthesis of Mendelian genetics with natural selection, neutral theory of molecular evolution, group selection, and even ecology. [7]
The late Stephen J. Gould was a notable evolutionary biologist of the 20th century who claimed that evolution is a fact. [4] In another publication, Gould (2000) [1] clarified the nature of objective science in the context of realism, truth, and factual reality:
Hence, evolutionary biology is a science that can access reliable knowledge through rational inference on evolutionary theory as it relates to factual reality. Science produces knowledge of facts and demands publicly verifiable evidence of their existence and relevance to an inference. Evolutionary theory is based on a rational understanding and logical explanation of cause-effect relations referring to fact(s) or phenomena. Rational understanding is acquired through the iterative and illuminating practice of experimentation where deductive reasoning is applied and theories may perish. In particular, it is the puzzling observations or surprising facts that capture the most attention in critical tests of a theory. Evolutionary biologists make no exception to these scientific principles in their practice and claims about evolutionary facts and theories."On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms." [1]
This is just a first stab at the revision. Looking forward to comments. Thompsma ( talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)