As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.
In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in an empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution.
Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’(27-28).
I think the downside of a post like this is that, whatever the validity of what Pauli said, people are going to immediately jump on the fact that his words come over half a century ago. The automatic reply is "a lot has happened since then".
That said, his general criticisms are at least worthy of reply. The replies I've seen have been all over the map, usually topped off with "well you can't do probability estimates of the sort you're asking, the topic can't be investigated in that way".
I think the downside of a post like this is that, whatever the validity of what Pauli said, people are going to immediately jump on the fact that his words come over half a century ago. The automatic reply is "a lot has happened since then".
ReplyDeleteThat said, his general criticisms are at least worthy of reply. The replies I've seen have been all over the map, usually topped off with "well you can't do probability estimates of the sort you're asking, the topic can't be investigated in that way".