 |
|
Reply
| | | Message 1 of 6 in Discussion |
|
I happened to turn on "book tv" while yet another "Creationist" or "Intelligent Design" critic of evolutionary theory (ET) was giving a talk (I turned it off quickly), and as is often the case, I tried to think of this "issue" in a larger context. One thing I find amusing is how "HIV/AIDS" is not even a hypothesis (let along a theory) and its critics want to talk about their examination of the actual experimental findings, yet basically get no coverage by the "mainstream media" (MSM), whereas the critics of ET make ludicrous or clearly non-scientific arguments and get so much attention by the MSM. One thing I try to explain to people is that today, "science" itself is not defined in a way that is precise and meaningful, and so one can't be sure how strong a "scientific" claim is. Most of us have experienced the example of hearing about a "new scientific finding," only to hear another "new scientific finding" that condradicts the first one, sometimes within the same week (an example of this are the claims about red wine or alcohol consumption more generally)! It's certainly true that there's been an "unwritten rule" in the "scientific establishment" (or however one wants to conceive the power wielded and resources controlled by specific "scientists" - the SE, for short) that experiments should be conducted frequently (if possible) to attempt to refute or verify theories and hypotheses. Such endeavors have occurred quite frequently with respect to Einstein's relativity claims, though one could argue that this is "now a waste of resources. Moreover, it has been common practice in Western scholarship (not just science) to conduct formal academic-style debates on issues that are not "settled" (meaning some scholars disagree with a claim and are able to present a case against, possibly including an alternative explanation).
None of these "checks" have occurred with "HIV/AIDS," because advocates refuse to participate, sometimes claiming that there is such "overwhelming evidence" to support their notion that it would be a waste of their time. Yet when asked to provide the best single piece of evidence (as embodied in a study published in a peer-reviewed journal), I have never gotten a single citation, but instead received the "there is overwhelming evidence" mantra. On the other hand, the "theory of evolution" was founded on an attempt to explain the differences among species. A point I've made before is that "species" is a human construct, albeit a useful one in particular contexts. The scientific method is quite simple, and is based upon attempting to determine what the most likely cause of an effect is. Because it can't ever be known for certain, the claim, no matter how "strong," must at best be considered a "theory." A hypothesis is not yet a theory because it has yet to be tested rigorously. To determine the cause of a phenomenon, experiments that "control" for all possible factors need to be conducted. For example, if you want to demonstrate that some dietary fat is essential to rats, you can feed one group of rats a fat-free diet, while another group is fed a diet that contains fat. However, it's not always so easy to control for all potentially causative factors, and even in the apparently simple attempt to determine if rats need dietary fat, major mistakes were made (and the public is still being told that some kinds of fatty acid molecules are "essential").
In the case of ET, there is an assumption that "species" exist, and a definition is given, yet it's highly likely that there are exceptions to this "rule," and that is something that invalidates a scientific theory. Instead, ET advocates should simply point to the fossil record, known molecular-level mechanisms, genetic knowledge, etc., and point out that one can call this a "scientific" estimate, rather than a "theory." The same is true of other such "controversial issues," like "global warming." Instead, ET advocates allow critics to make claims that simply have no place in any form of "science." For example, there is a claim that "life" is too "complex" to have arisen over time, and that a "creator" must have created "life." I would point out that one would first have to define "life," then define "complexity," then define "creator," etc. Of course, science can only examine the known universe, and so claims about a "creator" are ludicrous because the "creator" is not available to scientists for examination. "Complexity" is a human construct, and because it appears that "life" developed over many millions of years, a verification/refutation experiment is not possible. "Life" is not necessarily easy to define, though I'd suggest those interested in this subject to read some of biophysicist Gilbert Ling's books.
We have the language, but our "scientific experts" don't seem to know how to use it very effectively. By now, they should be teaching our youth that there is an important difference between scientific estimates and scientific theories. Instead, there are ludicrous claims that are part of the SE's "canon," such as "HIV/AIDS" and "essential fatty acids," while on the other hand the SE does not point out that ET critics are making un-scientific claims. Doing so would require the distinction between the estimate and the theory, which has yet to be articulated by the SE folks. Doing so would begin the process of "marginalizing" critics of "science" who really should be, rather than those who should not (such as the "HIV/AIDS" critics). And here is where social theory comes into play. It would require an entire book to "flesh out" all the specifics, but, in general," the SE folks are highly "specialized" and not particularly given to reconsidering the canon they were taught while students (this is especially true in the "life sciences"). There are also incredible "conflicts of interest" involved, obviously (such as those making a lot of money from patents to fight "viruses" that don't exist). |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
