tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7643546332531626672..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Unprobable EvolutionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37540834002365415892007-08-08T14:23:00.000-04:002007-08-08T14:23:00.000-04:00By the way, I should also point out that T-Stone i...By the way, I should also point out that T-Stone is heading toward a Gnostic-like position here.<BR/><BR/>When I used the terms "evolution" and "Darwinism", they were used in the context by which Gould was using them. I was critiquing Gould's claims, and he was the one who used these words.<BR/><BR/>T-Stone is saying that I have to have some kind of "hidden" knowledge of what the terms mean; knowledge that is not provided by Gould. In other words, T-Stone is essentially stating that the meaning of the terms is not found by the context of the terms in the passages that Gould states, but instead is found in some other source "out there." Presumably, T-Stone has this knowledge...but I don't. (This is his Gnostic-esque tendency--the idea of the hidden knowledge that only he has access to.)<BR/><BR/>So I would ask T-Stone to demonstrate how my use of the terms is inconsistent with Gould's use of the terms. But this requires T-Stone to know what Gould's use of the terms are too.<BR/><BR/>So, since T-Stone likes to say this so much: Show that math. Show what Gould meant by evolution and Darwinism, T-Stone.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49461822002255175592007-08-08T13:48:00.000-04:002007-08-08T13:48:00.000-04:00Let the record show that you presented no credible...Let the record show that you presented no credible argument/evidence that PP showed no... <I> resemblence between what Gould is saying, and what you are saying (or saying he's saying) </I> <BR/><BR/>"It's in the mind you know" The Goons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74737564918591391512007-08-08T13:35:00.000-04:002007-08-08T13:35:00.000-04:00Yes, the reason is that it's unnecessary.Yes, the reason is that it's unnecessary.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68407333099907223742007-08-08T12:33:00.000-04:002007-08-08T12:33:00.000-04:00Peter,My request for clarity on terms was just to ...Peter,<BR/><BR/>My request for clarity on terms was just to two terms in a single sentence. I think I generally get your drift elsewhere. And while I don't see hardly any resemblence between what Gould is saying, and what you are saying (or saying he's saying), I've come to think it's not generally intentional. Just a failure to grasp the basic fundamentals of the underlying theories.<BR/><BR/>Let the record show no definitions for "Darwinism" or "evolution" have been provided for the quote above. There's a reason for that.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30708181351791136122007-08-08T10:17:00.000-04:002007-08-08T10:17:00.000-04:00Notice that T-Stone entered this conversation all ...Notice that T-Stone entered this conversation all guns blazing:<BR/>---<BR/>You're so far from beginning to understand this basic stuff, it's just not worth pointing out what Gould is talking about.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>And:<BR/>---<BR/>You don't have enough basic understanding of what Gould is saying here to even misrepresent him. That's what I mean by "not even wrong" -- misrepresentation implies some grasp of the true meanings of the words which one will then misrepresent.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Yet <I>NOW</I>, T-Stone is saying that he doesn't know what I meant by my terms. T-Stone impales himself with this tactic. If my terms are not knowable (by him), then he cannot know that my argument was wrong. By stating my argument was wrong, T-Stone <I>admitted</I> that he understood my terms fully. It is only after he has been complete destroyed that he changes his tune and tries to find some other way of escape.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, T-Stone is pathetic. He treats consistency in the same light as...well, as I now view him. You know, as something that's nice in theory, but in reality should be shunned completely.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56820522815727622232007-08-07T19:08:00.000-04:002007-08-07T19:08:00.000-04:00Warren,Reading that back, it might not be perfectl...Warren,<BR/><BR/>Reading that back, it might not be perfectly clear; above, I was suggesting that Pike is *not* equivocating, as he's not in close enough proximity to anything recognizable as "Darwinism" (even in creationist understandings) to be misleading. It's more just... surreal prose here than anything else from Peter.<BR/><BR/>At least until I can see what "Darwinism" means such that it can't be scrutinized scientifically...<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34609239092406243942007-08-07T19:05:00.000-04:002007-08-07T19:05:00.000-04:00Warren,It's one thing to trade on different (and p...Warren,<BR/><BR/>It's one thing to trade on different (and possibly misleading) meanings of one's terms. Here, we're told "Darwinism" -- whatever Pike supposes that means (he doesn't say here, and the usual definitions don't fit at all) -- is impervious to scientific scrutiny. <BR/><BR/>We're not just talking about different usages of "Darwinism" here, but something that I can't see attached to "Darwinism" at all, given whatever usage you want to cite (I'm open to citations that show this, of course).<BR/><BR/>It's like saying "theology" isn't relevant to religion or spirituality -- one can only wonder what is possibly *meant* by the term, as it's not vaguely recognizable in context.<BR/><BR/>[Insert usual Lewis Carroll reference to Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" -- words mean what you want them to mean, no more and no less... requests for definitions are in order.]<BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71743271056590596212007-08-07T18:51:00.000-04:002007-08-07T18:51:00.000-04:00To equivocate... to use ambiguous or unclear expre...To equivocate...<BR/><I> to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge: When asked directly for his position on disarmament, the candidate only equivocated. </I><BR/><BR/>Seems to me your get out of jail card is, "Aha well that's not exactly what I (or Gould) mean by 'Darwinsim' and 'evolution'. As usual you have simply asserted without specifically showing why PP has it sooooo wrong. <BR/><BR/>WarrenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18503468556373808202007-08-07T17:11:00.000-04:002007-08-07T17:11:00.000-04:00I don't see "Darwinism" and "evolution" here as "e...I don't see "Darwinism" and "evolution" here as "equivocable" is why. It's just pulling random terms from the air, for all I can see. If not, then show the math.<BR/><BR/>I don't expect Peter (or anyone) *can* equivocate here, as his terms aren't attached to what is "unpredictable". He's just confused, so far as I can see. I'm not holding my breath for definitions, just asking for them as a way of showing the problem with his statement. <BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13293855962849853202007-08-07T17:00:00.000-04:002007-08-07T17:00:00.000-04:00TS - No this is you being backed into a corner and...TS - No this is you being backed into a corner and trying to equivocate on definitions. Why weren't you asking for definitions before you jumped in?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52449611387427755422007-08-07T15:49:00.000-04:002007-08-07T15:49:00.000-04:00I'm happy to have someone else provide the definit...I'm happy to have someone else provide the definitions here, if they are so obvious. What do "Darwinism" and "evolution" mean here, such that they cannot be examined scientifically?<BR/><BR/>Anyone?<BR/><BR/>Or is this just 'leave little Peter Pike alone' to his hand waving? I can do that, if that's all it is.<BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27192837173095998852007-08-07T15:37:00.000-04:002007-08-07T15:37:00.000-04:00Please forget trying to overlay Gould's meanings, ...<I> Please forget trying to overlay Gould's meanings, as you are having enough trouble just getting across what *you* mean, for starters. Let's get "Darwinism" and "evolution" defined as *you* mean them in this sentence, and then we will be getting somewhere... </I><BR/><BR/>TS many of us are having no difficulty in following PP's argument. It's amazing what you can comprehend when your mouth is not planted in your mouth because of a predictable knee jerk reaction. As to defining "Darwinism" and "evolution" you are the master of 'duck and weave'. <BR/><BR/>I wonder who takes precedence in your life. Your god, Science, or Jehovah?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12423678380503177602007-08-07T15:11:00.000-04:002007-08-07T15:11:00.000-04:00Peter, Well, maybe you could just provide a defini...Peter, <BR/><BR/>Well, maybe you could just provide a definition of "Darwinism" as you've used it here, and maybe "evolution" as well. If you meant to say that "narrative" isn't scientific, I think that still is overly broad. But that doesn't account for your use of "Darwinism", or "evolution" here.<BR/><BR/>Do you mean to say that this statement of yours was sort of so much rhetorical fluff or hand-waving, and the *real* points you had to make lie elsewhere? If not, what did you mean by "Darwinism" and "evolution" specifically? Please forget trying to overlay Gould's meanings, as you are having enough trouble just getting across what *you* mean, for starters. Let's get "Darwinism" and "evolution" defined as *you* mean them in this sentence, and then we will be getting somewhere...<BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13037430738490997482007-08-07T15:00:00.000-04:002007-08-07T15:00:00.000-04:00T-Stone,We already know you're dense. There is no...T-Stone,<BR/><BR/>We already know you're dense. There is no need to continue to prove it. <BR/><BR/>I already explained your misrepresentation of my quote in my previous post. If you had any reading comprehension, you would be able to look at it and grasp this. Since you cannot, there is little point in my repeating myself now.<BR/><BR/>Allow me to explain a bit of reading comprehension to you. You are quoting one sentence that begins a train of thought that continues through the entirety of the paragraph. If you read the other sentences that surrounded the one sentence you are quoting, you would see that my comment is directed to a specific point regarding narrative as science. I have pointed out that narrative is not science. I have provided sources from two people who agree with my position. I could find more, but what's the point when you can't even follow what's already been presented. <BR/><BR/>Third grade children do not have this amount of difficulty, T-Stone.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-201260227566847412007-08-07T14:37:00.000-04:002007-08-07T14:37:00.000-04:00Peter,I haven't suggested this was *Gould's* posit...Peter,<BR/><BR/>I haven't suggested this was *Gould's* position:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>First, the unpredictability of Darwinism means that we do not have any scientific way to examine evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>Nor have I suggested that you think Gould says this. I took this to be a position you were offering as a bit of your own thinking. Is it?<BR/><BR/>Do you stand by this as the result of your own thinking:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>First, the unpredictability of Darwinism means that we do not have any scientific way to examine evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>Forget Gould for the moment. Is this a valid representation of the analysis of the situation from Peter Pike?<BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83653465555484147742007-08-07T14:27:00.000-04:002007-08-07T14:27:00.000-04:00The reasoning of Gould, as demonstrated by Shrek.....The reasoning of Gould, as demonstrated by Shrek...<BR/><BR/>"Fiona, I picked you this flower because it's pretty, and, well I don't really like it, but I thought you might because you're pretty. But I like you anyway!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34316430616967283412007-08-07T14:16:00.000-04:002007-08-07T14:16:00.000-04:00Originally, I thought that T-Stone could not possi...Originally, I thought that T-Stone could not possibly be this stupid. But I am willing to admit I was wrong: he <I>IS</I> this stupid.<BR/><BR/>T-Stone quotes part of my argument (by the way, T-Stone, what you did with my quote <I>IS</I> a misrepresentation). I said, in its entirety:<BR/>---<BR/>First, the unpredictability of Darwinism means that we do not have any scientific way to examine evolution. Evolution is simply narrative, which does not fit into the strict roles of scientific method. (Gould argues that we should not heed such rules at this point, but I find this to be nothing more than a case of special pleading that he would never allow a theist.)<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Note that I summed up the problem, <I>and I even said that Gould argues that it should not apply in this case</I>. I noted that this reads to me as nothing more than special pleading, but the point is that I went out of my way to ensure that readers (T-Stone excluded, since he's too incompetent to figure out anything) would know that this conclusion was challenged by Gould.<BR/><BR/>How T-Stone could use this to say I'm misrepresenting the argument when I have, indeed, acknowledged the argument is simply astounding.<BR/><BR/>Historical narrative is what Gould was speaking of here. Historical narrative is <I>NOT</I> scientific. The fact that Gould had to say that the scientific method needing to be predictive is "stereotypical" (his words, found in the quote I provided) demonstrates that this view of the scientific method is out there.<BR/><BR/>Further, I can quote other scientists on the fact that historical narrative is not scientific. For instance:<BR/>---<BR/>The stories we tell ourselves about evolutionary history, such as the tale of how fishes got their legs...are only true inasmuch as they reinforce our prejudices: they tell us what we want to hear, not what really happened. How do such stories have the potential to be so wrong? <B>The reason is that they become detached from science or rather, the capacity of science to examine these stories in terms of hypotheses or experiments that can be tested.</B><BR/><BR/>(Gee, <I>In Search of Deep Time</I>, p. 86, emphasis added).<BR/><BR/>Further:<BR/>---<BR/>...[A] lot of what we read in popular as well as scholarly literature is essentially an explanation of how, why, when, or where some evolutionary change occurred. But evolutionary explanations--for example, of how selection could have caused this or that feature to change from this or that--are always based on a previously accepted theory of who is related to whom precisely because we have to know beforehand the points between which this purported change would have occurred. How else could we have any basis for formulating a scheme about how something changed from this to that? All too often, however, an explanation of how something could have happened given a certain scheme of relationships is accepted as representing the rigorous analysis of the evolutionary relationships that have already been assumed.<BR/><BR/>(Schwartz, <I>What the Bones Tell Us</I> p. 239).<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Note that Schwartz gives this quote in reference to the fact that he believes humans are descended from orangutans, and not chimps. In fact, he says of the Human-Chimp arrangment:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>If we are going to accept an exclusive human-chimp association, then we are going to have to accept the consequences that go along with it. The most profound consequence is, I think, that morphology has to be viewed as unrevealing when it comes to resolving the evolutionary relationships of organisms. Otherwise, the uniquenesses shared by chimps and gorillas, especially in their forearm anatomy, provide overwhelming evidence of their close evolutionary relationship. If we accept molecularly based phylogenies exclusively, and not as potential alternative hypotheses, we must reject fossils as being informative sources of data, because fossils are known only as preserved morphological entitites. And, thus, because fossils cannot be placed reliably in schemes of phylogenetic relationships--that can result only from a morphological analysis--they cannot be used to provide dates from which to calibrate any evolutionary clock, molecular or otherwise.<BR/><BR/>(ibid. p. 262)<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>But that is an aside. The point is that the reason the narrative fails is because the narrative is based on assumptions which are not proven, and the conclusion of the arguments are then used as "evidence" for the assumptions that were required in the first place--in short, narrative is circular reasoning, which is precisely why Gould acknowledged this point: "Arguments that propose adaptive superiority as the basis for survival <I>risk the classic error of circular reasoning</I>" and "Anyone can invent a plausible story after the fact" (p. 236).<BR/><BR/>If you are going to insist that I haven't followed the argument, you could do your part by demonstrating it instead of bloviating, T-Stone. Once again you are buried under such an all-encompasing refutation that it is a waste of my time to keep flogging your dead caracas. Either get an argument or shut up.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63092379017899436972007-08-07T12:31:00.000-04:002007-08-07T12:31:00.000-04:00Peter,You don't have enough basic understanding of...Peter,<BR/><BR/>You don't have enough basic understanding of what Gould is saying here to even misrepresent him. That's what I mean by "not even wrong" -- misrepresentation implies some grasp of the true meanings of the words which one will then misrepresent.<BR/><BR/>Read this sentence again from your post and tell me you think this is anything but foolish:<BR/><BR/><I>First, the unpredictability of Darwinism means that we do not have any scientific way to examine evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you claim this is an a coherent, intelligent statement, given Gould's text? I'm not talking about even misrepresenting. I'm just talking about a basic, feeble grasp of the concepts at work here?<BR/><BR/>If someone gave you a "card shuffling machine" to reverse engineer, would you refuse the task as a trick, since the shuffling machine produced provably unpredictable results every time you pressed the "shuffle" button? You're lost in confusion about the predictability of specific *outcomes* from a system, and predictable features and properties of the system itself.<BR/><BR/>If that isn't enough a clue, feel free to languish in you foolishness here...<BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71622948400453804722007-08-07T11:20:00.000-04:002007-08-07T11:20:00.000-04:00Because I'm feeling a bit gracious to the poor tro...Because I'm feeling a bit gracious to the poor troglodyte, I<BR/>ll give a source that T-Stone is comfortable with (Wikipedia --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould ).<BR/><BR/>There we learn what John Maynard Smith thinks of Gould: <BR/><BR/>"Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists." (NYRB, Nov. 30th 1995, p. 46). Further, Maynard Smith says Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory." <BR/><BR/>We also learn that Simon Conway Morris now disagrees with Gould on the Burgess Shale (although at the time Conway Morris' papers were heavily used by Gould). Ernst Mayr says of others who hold Gould's position, although not mentioning Gould specifically, they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of [biology's] leading spokesmen." Robert Wright calls Gould "The Accidental Creationist", maintaining:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>Obviously, we can't hold scholars strictly responsible for how their words are used. There <I>are</I> lots of gaps in the fossil record, and though many biologists believe that Gould cites the record too selectively, it isn't his fault when creationists quote him dishonestly, as they sometimes do. The problem is that often they don't have to.<BR/><BR/>(see: http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm linked to in the Bibliography of the Wiki article)<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but the point is clear. T-Stone claims that I have misrepresented Gould. If this is true, then so have Ernst Mayr, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Bill Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Tim Clutton-Brock, Paul Harvey, Brian Charlesworth, Jerry Coyne, Robert Trivers, John Alcock, Randy Thornhill, and many others--all of whom have criticized Gould personally, or his position.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that so many atheist evolutionists would not have a problem with Gould if it was a simple case of creationists misrepresenting him. But because creationists are <I>not</I> misrepresenting him, they have to attack Gould personally...all the while maintaining that creationist are misrepresenting him by coming to the same conclusions about his views that they do!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19578262280385914512007-08-07T10:58:00.000-04:002007-08-07T10:58:00.000-04:001. Check out T-blog. Check.2. Entry on evolution? ...1. Check out T-blog. Check.<BR/>2. Entry on evolution? Check.<BR/>3. Knee-jerk reaction with plenty of assertions, no arguments. Check.<BR/>4. Find a nice area. Turn around three times. Lie down. Sleep until the next ringing of the bell. Check.<BR/><BR/>Pavlov's dog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85193399245613095862007-08-07T10:19:00.000-04:002007-08-07T10:19:00.000-04:00(BTW, I'm waiting for the upcoming T-Stone Google ...(BTW, I'm waiting for the upcoming T-Stone Google Search (TM) to provide us with quotes from, say, Robert Wright, as if these were actually T-Stone's thoughts.)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5856352813352002952007-08-07T10:17:00.000-04:002007-08-07T10:17:00.000-04:00Bryan,Indeed. I, on the other hand, have plenty o...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>Indeed. I, on the other hand, have plenty of reasons, citations, and arguments as to why it's pointless to try to communicate with T-Stone; his previous comment is just one more for the pile.<BR/><BR/>Although I do wonder what cluessness is, let alone the utter and profound kind. I think I could sell that on eBay.<BR/><BR/>I do especially love how T-Stone thinks I'm misrepresenting authors when I quote them with large chunks of context and he...um, well he doesn't even bother to quote them at all...yet somehow he knows I'm taking them out of context. Yes, the vast intellect of the Tiny Pebble doth astound me much.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73685887391968354682007-08-07T07:58:00.000-04:002007-08-07T07:58:00.000-04:00Touchstone makes a lot of claims above, but fails ...Touchstone makes a lot of claims above, but fails to provide reasons, citations, or arguments as to why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33384811600406037762007-08-06T22:22:00.000-04:002007-08-06T22:22:00.000-04:00Utter, profound cluessness.Not even wrong.You're s...Utter, profound cluessness.<BR/><BR/>Not even wrong.<BR/><BR/>You're so far from beginning to understand this basic stuff, it's just not worth pointing out what Gould is talking about.<BR/><BR/>Just let the record show that this is what passes for scientific thinking at Triablogue.<BR/><BR/>-TSTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.com