Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here's a question: what makes the (macro) theory of evolution scientific? What if it's not science at all?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: what makes the (macro) theory of evolution scientific? What if it's not science at all?

Because it's a tested explanation and theory about the natural world. Plus there was large amounts of amounts of experiments and data put into it one of the key components of scientific process, therefore it's safe to conclude that evolution is a

scientific theory.

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You aren't advocating skepticism though, what you are advocating is closer to outright denial of science.

Really... where have I ever said that ALL science was to be denied?

This is pretty damn close.

generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me.

Cheesecat wrote:Because it's a tested explanation and theory about the natural world. Plus there was large amounts of amounts of experiments and data put into it one of the key components of scientific process, therefore it's safe to conclude that evolution is a

scientific theory.

How did they test it?

I mean, obviously they know that fruitflies can evolve, as they have controlled experiments for that. But I'm pretty sure they haven't come up with an experiment that turns a monkey-man into a human over a million years.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Because it's a tested explanation and theory about the natural world. Plus there was large amounts of amounts of experiments and data put into it one of the key components of scientific process, therefore it's safe to conclude that evolution is a

scientific theory.

How did they test it?

I mean, obviously they know that fruitflies can evolve, as they have controlled experiments for that. But I'm pretty sure they haven't come up with an experiment that turns a monkey-man into a human over a million years.

Alright maybe there was no experiments but he did take a bunch of data and made some observations. Then he made up a theory by combining the data and observations he had, which is what the core of scientific theory is.

My understanding was that the core of a scientific theory is the ability to test it. A theory which cannot be tested in a controlled setting is therefore unscientific. Am I misunderstanding the method?

Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding was that the core of a scientific theory is the ability to test it. A theory which cannot be tested in a controlled setting is therefore unscientific. Am I misunderstanding the method?

But isn't many things in astronomy untestable? So does that mean that most theories based around astronomy are therefore unscientific?

Hmm. Yeah, the use of the word "science" would have to be pruned quite a bit by my usage of it.

Well, let's say this: you can use the scientific method to arrive at principles/natural law. You can use these principles, along with logic/common sense to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes you can perform a test to see if these conclusions are accurate, and sometimes you can't. However, even a set of conclusions can't be proved/disproved through experimentation, can still be logical, and these should be accepted as true (unless the principles they were derived from change, or you decide that the conclusions aren't a logical derivative of those principles after all).

Does this seem sensible?

Cheesecat wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding was that the core of a scientific theory is the ability to test it. A theory which cannot be tested in a controlled setting is therefore unscientific. Am I misunderstanding the method?

But isn't many things in astronomy untestable? So does that mean that most theories based around astronomy are therefore unscientific?

It's actually pretty crazy.

The best thing about it is if the LHC does what it's supposed to, everything we know about space that's based on String Theory will pretty much amount to feth-all.

Fortunately that's what everything I know about space that's based on String Theory amounts to already.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. Yeah, the use of the word "science" would have to be pruned quite a bit by my usage of it.

Well, let's say this: you can use the scientific method to arrive at principles/natural law. You can use these principles, along with logic/common sense to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes you can perform a test to see if these conclusions are accurate, and sometimes you can't. However, even a set of conclusions can't be proved/disproved through experimentation, they can still be logical, and should be accepted as true (unless the principles they were derived from change, or you decide that the conclusions aren't a logical derivative of those principles after all).

Does this seem sensible?

Sure, I don't think that contradicts anything I said previously.

Well, the only question now is whether a set of these later conclusions should or shouldn't be called a scientific theory. I guess I don't know what else I'd call them.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, the only question now is whether a set of these later conclusions should or shouldn't be called a scientific theory. I guess I don't know what else I'd call them.

By "later conclusions" do you mean "evolution" or our discussion about what scientific theory is?

I meant conclusions which are logically derived from principles that have proven by the scientific method, but which cannot be tested through this method themselves.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I meant conclusions which are logically derived from principles that have proven by the scientific method, but which cannot be tested through this method themselves.

I think they should be a part of scientific theory, because I don't know what else to call or categorize it as. Also many thing in science will forever be untestable yet they're still considered science.

Cheesecat wrote:I think they should be a part of scientific theory, because I don't know what else to call or categorize it as.

Yeah, that would be my problem too.

Seems to be some confusion here between not understanding a thing and surmising that it does not exist or that you are being lied to.

Manchu wrote:Seems to be some confusion here between not understanding a thing and surmising that it does not exist or that you are being lied to.

Well, what does science mean to you?

I don't disagree with the way science is being discussed. But claiming that astronomy and evolutionary biology are based on untestable theories is simply wrong.

:EDIT: In that case how would you conduct an experiment proving the hypothesis that "humans evolved from a type of ape over the last 100,000 years", or something to that effect?

@Orkeosaurus: I don't understand what you mean. Are you looking for detailed explanation of the scientific experiments used to test hypotheses about evolutionary biology and astronomy? From a lawyer? On an internet forum about miniatures wargaming?

Oops, see edit if you haven't.

What I'm asking isn't whether principles which went into the theory can be proven with the scientific method, but whether the theory as a whole can be. In other words, is there way to see if the theory's composite parts have been assembled correctly, and so can be scientifically proven to be historical.

That depends on what you mean by "as a whole." I don't think the specific steps (amoeba to fish to salamander, etc) from those old film strips is really the content of evolutionary theory. When I think of evolutionary biology, I think of the idea of common genetic descent--which has been "proven" by analysis of genes.

Hmm. I'm guessing you could test hypothesized connections by accurately predicting similarities in the DNA structure of the creatures in question, based on the similarities the theory would entail.

That would make the assembly of the theory a lot more experiment-driven than it was under Darwin.

You have to remember that it was quite some time after Darwin's death that mendelian genetics and natural selection were connected.

Also, observation generally is a part of science--not merely observation of controlled variables in recreatable circumstances.

True, but I would nonetheless say that conclusions based on these observations need to be empirically testable for them to be scientific. Otherwise how would you distinguish science from philosophy?

In the 1850s, it was a hazier picture. Hence the development of eugenics.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: what makes the (macro) theory of evolution scientific?

It has demonstrated predictive power (it suggested a range of things that subsequently turned out to be true) and has been observed (we've witness speciation in flies, for instance).

What if it's not science at all?

If it wasn't science then the origin of the species would become one more thing in the giant list of things that we don't understand at this point. People who confuse faith and science would attempt to use this gap in our knowledge to declare there must be a God.

Orkeosaurus wrote:How did they test it?

I mean, obviously they know that fruitflies can evolve, as they have controlled experiments for that. But I'm pretty sure they haven't come up with an experiment that turns a monkey-man into a human over a million years.

You can say 'if evolution had occured then we would observe very similar genetic markers between species believed to have reasonably recent common ancestors'. We have looked at the genetic markers and observed that very thing.

You can say 'if various parts of the body would be suboptimal because they evolved through a non-directed process, so the final result would be a lot less efficient than if someone had designed the part to perform it's final task.' We can observe this in things such as the eye, which are a mess of design, with veins going all over the place, and producing a final result that doesn't work anywhere near as well as it should. The design makes sense when you look at it as a series of evolutionary steps, but little sense as deliberate design.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. Yeah, the use of the word "science" would have to be pruned quite a bit by my usage of it.

Well, let's say this: you can use the scientific method to arrive at principles/natural law. You can use these principles, along with logic/common sense to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes you can perform a test to see if these conclusions are accurate, and sometimes you can't. However, even a set of conclusions can't be proved/disproved through experimentation, can still be logical, and these should be accepted as true (unless the principles they were derived from change, or you decide that the conclusions aren't a logical derivative of those principles after all).

Does this seem sensible?

Yes, but the trick is that 'testing' isn't restricted to direct observation. You can form a theory that proposes a billion years of geological forces would produce rock formations of certain types, and then you can go out and test this by observing the actual rock formations.

George Spiggott wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Ahtman wrote:You aren't advocating skepticism though, what you are advocating is closer to outright denial of science.

Really... where have I ever said that ALL science was to be denied?

This is pretty damn close.

generalgrog wrote:Most people on here know my feelings on the modern scientific movement. So.. relying on modern science which is rooted in liberalism and secular humanism isn't going to score any points with me.

Actually no.... not close at all.

GG