Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Two Different Types of Certainty?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I merely haven't seen all the evidence in order to come to that conclusion first hand; that is, I haven't studied that field of science.
Why would you need to see all of the evidence that had been amassed by scientists on the topic? Does the fact that you know less about the topic that Gould did prevent you from concluding that evoution is proven?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you need to see all of the evidence that had been amassed by scientists on the topic? Does the fact that you know less about the topic that Gould did prevent you from concluding that evolution is proven?

You focused on the "all" instead of the "first hand" that I put in my reply.

No, one would not have to observe and to integrate every bit of scrap of evidence for evolution in order to reach a conclusion; but one would have to observe enough of the evidence and to integrate it with one's own mind in order to reach a conclusion.

Let me put it this way: When I read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in early high school in the early 1970's I was convinced that he was on to something. However, since most of the species he was talking about were thousands of miles away from where I lived, I couldn't be absolutely certain because I wasn't familiar with those species of animals. That is, I couldn't observe the subtle differences between types of birds that only varied according to some feather colors. In essence, I would have had to take his word at it, which is not a good way of doing science.

In the following thirty years, I have read many books on the subject and have been to natural history museums and have seen many television shows on the topic of evolution. And it makes a great deal of sense to me that evolution occurred. However, I haven't gone out first hand to verify where and when the fossils were found, and that they were found in stratum that was laid down in those specific time periods millions of years ago.

Now, the way evolution has been presented, especially on The Science Channel in recent years, the continuum of the subtle changes leading to a new species has been made even more clear to the point where I am pretty much convinced -- if (and this is the important part), if they presented actual evidence in a continuum manner. But I think a rational man would have to be able to verify those observations and not just take the scientists' word at it to be fully certain that evolution occurred. I mean, one can draw a picture of the changes the way they animate it on The Science Channel, but was the animation correct to the facts? That is what one would have to verify to be certain.

Because look at the flip side. The Science Channel is also presenting Global Warming on almost every science show -- with the implication if not the explication that man is behind the rise in temperature that will wipe out most life on earth. But I haven't fallen for that, even though they have the graphics and the animation to "back it up." The facts or factoids they present for that case simply don't add up.

In other words, to be absolutely certain, one does have to study the field enough to come to an independent conclusion based on the facts. One has to be able to integrate the facts together, and know which facts to integrate and which one not to integrate, rather than just take a scientist's word at it. However, this does not give the Creationists any excuse for not integrating facts and sticking to hokum because they believe God created man out of clay, because the Bible says so.

So the point is that one cannot merely decide if one is going to believe the Bible or believe the scientists, one has to have the facts first hand and to integrate those facts first hand in order to come to a definitive conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You focused on the "all" instead of the "first hand" that I put in my reply.
Maybe you could explain why you think that is important (or for that matter what it means). I just want to understand why you have any reservations about the theory of evolution as proven. Are you suggesting that a person has to actually conduct the experiments themself in order to consider a conclusion proven? I just can't see how adding "first hand" contributes anything to your cause.
but one would have to observe enough of the evidence and to integrate it with one's own mind in order to reach a conclusion.
Okay, so why is that impossible for you in the case of evolution (I think I get it now, see below)?
However, since most of the species he was talking about were thousands of miles away from where I lived, I couldn't be absolutely certain because I wasn't familiar with those species of animals.
If you are saying that you doubted his veracity, then of course you could not be certain that his conclusions were correct. As a volitional being, it's imaginable that Darwin was a big fat liar and he made all of that stuff up, so this seems to push the problem back a step, where you can doubt any scientific claim because it's possible that the "evidence" is all fabrications.
In essence, I would have had to take his word at it, which is not a good way of doing science.
Okay, maybe this explains it. I disagree with this statement in extremis.

Progress in science is founded on the idea of hierarchical knowledge: lower level conclusions are first proven, and then integrated into higher level conclusions. In order for you to perform even the simplest junior high school chemistry experiment, you have to take someone's word for it that those glass tubes with red liquid do actually measure temperature, that those strange gadgets with metal pans and beams with slidey things do measure weight, that the jars labeled "HCl" do indeed contain hydrochloric acid, and so on. If you need to personally validate the foundations of science, you can, although you'll get an E on the assignment of the week because you're still trying to validate the thermometer.

While I agree that you should not automatically accept the theoretical conclusions drawn by a scientist, I hold that unless you have reason to doubt the truthfulness of a researcher, you should trust the observations. I know that people falsify data, and that is a capital crime in the business. If you have or had a reason to think that Darwin falsified his report, then doubt about evolution would be warranted.

If your knowledge of evolution is entirely unscientific (derived only from sound-bite popular television shows), then I wouldn't expect you to accept the claims of evolution. So perhaps I was making rash assumptions about your scientific knowledge of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progress in science is founded on the idea of hierarchical knowledge: lower level conclusions are first proven, and then integrated into higher level conclusions. In order for you to perform even the simplest junior high school chemistry experiment, you have to take someone's word for it that those glass tubes with red liquid do actually measure temperature, that those strange gadgets with metal pans and beams with slidey things do measure weight, that the jars labeled "HCl" do indeed contain hydrochloric acid, and so on. If you need to personally validate the foundations of science, you can, although you'll get an E on the assignment of the week because you're still trying to validate the thermometer.

I strongly disagree with this presentation. The physical sciences, done properly, would not require taking anybody's word at anything. One would learn how to validate scientific claims first hand, and wouldn't be able to pass the course unless you could do so. It would have to be verified that thermometers measure temperature and balance scales measure weight; and one would have to be able to verify that the container marked HCl does indeed contain hydrochloric acid.

My science background is in physics, philosophy and chemistry; not biology and evolution. I couldn't tell you the scientific names for the species that Darwin discussed in his book; nor tell you why they were considered a different species even though they were very similar to species found near Darwin's home. In other words, if one looks at the offspring of domesticated dogs and cats, there is a wide variety of coloration and size; though because they can interbreed they can be considered one species. At least I've heard that all domesticated dogs are one species -- i.e. german shepards are the same species as cocker spaniels, and so are poodles. So, based on that kind of observation, why would different colors in birds living thousands of miles apart make them different species but not domesticated dogs? It is these types of questions that one would have to be able to answer with certainty to be able to claim with certainty that evolution is a fully confirmed theory.

Even though I mentioned my years of paying attention to evolution, I never claimed to be an expert; and I think one would have to be an expert to be able to fully validate the theory. I think the scientists are probably right, given the general information that I have studied, but I haven't personally gone into enough detail to be able to tell you with certainty that species X came from species Y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...