Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 8 Issue 059
AIList Digest Saturday, 20 Aug 1988 Volume 8 : Issue 59
Free Will
How to dispose of the free will issue
Evolution
How to dispose of naive science types (fact vs. theory)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 88 21:30:38 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!etive!aiva!jeff@uunet.uu.net (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: How to dispose of the free will issue
In article <421@afit-ab.arpa> dswinney@icc.UUCP (David V. Swinney) writes:
>The "free-will" theorists hold that are choices are only partially
>deterministic and partially random.
No they don't, or at least not all of them. Having choices randomly
determined isn't better or more free than having them deterministically
determined. If fact, it's probably worse, since the result will be
chaotic.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 88 11:17 MST
From: "James J. Lippard" <Lippard@BCO-MULTICS.ARPA>
Reply-to: Lippard@BCO-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Evolution (was Re: How to dispose of naive science types)
>Date: 12 Aug 88 12:37:26 GMT
>From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!u1100s!castle@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
> (Deborah Smit)
>Another big mistake is when scientists present hypothetical OR theoretical
>work under the title "FACT". E.G. Evolution. The 'theories' of evolution
>(of which there are many, many, and conflicting), do not even fit under
>the title theory, since they are not demonstrable, and do not fit with
>the facts shown by the fossil record (no intermediate forms -- before
>you flame, examine current facts, fossils previously believed to be
>intermediate have been debunked). It certainly cannot be called FACT,
>though in college courses, some professors insist on speaking of
>'the fact of evolution'. When evolutionists cannot support their
>hypothesis by showing aggreement with known facts, they resort to
>emotional mind-bashing (only foolish, gullible people don't believe
>in evolution). Just my two cents. I enjoy reasonable theories,
>they truly unify what we observe, but I don't appreciate emotional
>outbursts on the part of those who can't give up their inaccurate
>hypotheses to go on to something better.
There are many erroneous statements in the above (such as the claim
that the fossil record shows that there are "no intermediate forms").
This is not the list for it, so I suggest the discussion on this
subject be moved to the Creation/Evolution list (mail to
rpjday@VIOLET.WATERLOO.EDU). I will just say here that "evolution"
is an ambiguous term which refers to a fact (descent with modification),
a number of theories (e.g., gradualism, punctuated equilibria), and
a biological paradigm. Those who talk about the "fact of evolution"
are not necessarily speaking falsely.
Jim Lippard
Lippard at BCO-MULTICS.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 16 Aug 88 23:49:56 GMT
From: att!alberta!calgary!radford@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: How to dispose of naive science types (fact vs. theory)
In article <388@u1100s.UUCP>, castle@u1100s.UUCP (Deborah Smit) writes:
> Another big mistake is when scientists present hypothetical OR theoretical
> work under the title "FACT". E.G. Evolution.
I won't get into a discussion of the specifics of evolution, which would
probably be endless, but I would like to point out why biologists
sometimes refer to the "fact" of evolution and the "theory" of natural
selection.
The distinction is between physical reality - the change of form in species
over time, and explanations of that phenomenon, such as natural selection.
Never mind whether you accept that evolution is indeed a fact. There is
as a real distinction here from the biologist's point of view. The "fact"
of evolution could well be established by a non-biologist - say a physicist
who invents a time-viewing machine. The explanation of the phenomenon
requires a real biological theory.
Radford Neal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 88 12:56:03 PDT
From: Dennis de Champeaux <ddc%hplddc@hplabs.HP.COM>
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V8 #52
A reply to the contribution of:
Date: 12 Aug 88 12:37:26 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxp!u1100s!castle@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
(Deborah Smit)
Subject: Re: How to dispose of naive science types (short)
Evolution remains a vulnerable notion. Deborah Smit reminds us that the
principle labeled by evolution is not a FACT (capitalization her's). It is
not even a theory, she adds. Because the evolution 'theories' "... are
not demonstrable, and do not fit with the facts shown by the fossil record
..."
This quotation is contradictory, because after first denying that evolution
can be demonstrated - I take it she meens falsifiable here -, she
subsequently gives evolution the honor status of being a false theory.
For me, evolution is a principle, a suggestion of how to do research. It
is not falsifiable in the ordinary sense indeed. If there is a missing
link, the principle urges to look harder. If this does not yield success,
the principle asks for patience or an "explanation" is given that the
evidence got lost in the turbulences of the past.
Evolution shares this not ordinarily falsifiable feature with the causality
principle.
Are people aware of other (former) principles that belong to the same
family, and which may shed light on the "life cycle" of these principles ?
Dennis de Champeaux
champeaux@hplabs.hp.com
[disclaimer on file]
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
