Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Aetixintro » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:21 pm

Is the good Imre wrong here?

"A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it....The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one." See pages 34-5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978. - Wikipedia, under Imre Lakatos

And in his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[8]he also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific", thus implying Darwin's theory of evolution did not satisfy Lakatos's own criterion of at least predicting some novel fact(s), and so either it was pseudoscientific or else there was something wrong with Lakatos's criterion. - Wikipedia, under Imre Lakatos

The point here is that Darwinism does fulfill Lakatos' own criterion of being scientific because as it has been shown in another thread of Evolution/Darwinism that finding fossil of a rabbit in a certain layer from a certain age and in a certain place is very much a novel fact despite it has been buried in the ground for just that long. Every time we dig up new fossils they are new facts to us and such subject to the strenghtening/weakening/refutation of Darwinism.

This is clearly the case, the way I see it, that Lakatos' is on good ground with his criterion, but wrong in assuming Darwinism isn't subject to new findings dug out of the ground! Maybe he's been thinking that the fossils are so old that they can never represent something new, but this is clearly mistaken! There you are, Lakatos' being corrected in some respect at least! Cheers! :)

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Wootah » Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:40 pm

I'll believe in evolution the day:
- something evolves
- a scientist invents something that is useful to mankind based upon his belief in evolution.
- a scientist discovers a new aspect of reality that can only make sense in light of evolution.
The point here is that Darwinism does fulfill Lakatos' own criterion of being scientific because as it has been shown in another thread of Evolution/Darwinism that finding fossil of a rabbit in a certain layer from a certain age and in a certain place is very much a novel fact despite it has been buried in the ground for just that long. Every time we dig up new fossils they are new facts to us and such subject to the strenghtening/weakening/refutation of Darwinism.
The history of fossil dating is one of matching the geological data with the radiometric data with the paleontology data. But what they do is not accept the answer each fossil gives but adjust their answer according to other finds in other places.

It should be considered as shameful as 'climate gate'. Even if the climate is warming or even if evolution is true the deliberate lying and manipulation of data is everything science should not be.
This is clearly the case, the way I see it, that Lakatos' is on good ground with his criterion, but wrong in assuming Darwinism isn't subject to new findings dug out of the ground!
These findings, dug out of the ground, are always interpreted according to the theory. You find a rabbit in the wrong strata layer and I guarantee no scientist will accept that finding.

Scientists are truly trapped in the paradigm of long ages and every piece they find is made to fit. The good thing is that science doesn't need a scientist's theories to work only the application of the scientific method.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Aetixintro » Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:30 am

Wootah
These findings, dug out of the ground, are always interpreted according to the theory. You find a rabbit in the wrong strata layer and I guarantee no scientist will accept that finding.
I guess you equate this with the observation of the perihelion of Mercury while only having the Newton theory to rely on in the past. It must be said that such a finding would call on the basic duties on every scientist of telling what's going on. I can't see how lying can be science in the sense of repeatability or something else. Do you suggest that there's a scientific conspiracy going on? :roll:
Also, what do you suggest scientists do then in considering dating on earth layers? I can't see that they have so many choices! I also believe they have made the best, honest choices in carrying out the duties of being a good/excellent scientist.

I just think you're being too radical for me to take this whole thing seriously. Really, "climate gate"? Do you doubt the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? I think you need to wake up, you! Sorry! :?

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Wootah » Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:53 am

I just think you're being too radical for me to take this whole thing seriously. Really, "climate gate"? Do you doubt the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? I think you need to wake up, you! Sorry!
I strongly doubt that man made climate change is the key driver in the temperature. Greenland being mapped by the vikings clearly shows how the temperature can change without us.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Aetixintro » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:30 am

Alright! That's a good reference! Although Vikings have mapped Greenland, wouldn't there be the seasonal cold of winter there? Also, I hear that they, Vikings, have struggled with agriculture there, agriculture not being suitable to the environment. Besides, the Viking observations come across as too vague in comparison to the analysis of CO2 trapped in old ice in glaciers! Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Not because it's this pop-thing, but rather because of this incredibly nice presentation of climate data, CO2 data, going back 650 000 (ref. trial in England reported by ...) years. Just very fine! The best example of science presented to public the way I see it. I appreciate your input of the story of the Vikings! Also, when they have travelled/discovered America, haven't they dealt with the big arctic ice sheet that is now in decline?

Edit: I've corrected the time-line of the CO2 and temperature data.
Last edited by Aetixintro on Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Wootah » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:42 am

Aetixintro wrote:Alright! That's a good reference! Although Vikings have mapped Greenland, wouldn't there be the seasonal cold of winter there? Also, I hear that they, Vikings, have struggled with agriculture there, agriculture not being suitable to the environment. Besides, the Viking observations come across as too vague in comparison to the analysis of CO2 trapped in old ice in glaciers! Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? Not because it's this pop-thing, but rather because of this incredibly nice presentation of climate data, CO2 data, going back 200 000(?) years. Just very fine! The best example of science presented to public the way I see it. I appreciate your input of the story of the Vikings! Also, when they have travelled/discovered America, haven't they dealt with the big arctic ice sheet that is now in decline?
Do you mean the movie with 35 documented errors in it?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html

Or is that the movie that was taken to court for the errors in it?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 633838.ece

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Aetixintro » Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:06 am

It has said in the film that the graph and the correlation between CO2 and temperature has been shown for the first time there to a wider audience. This should be correct! I also believe the 35 mistakes don't include the data underlying this specific graph and the correlation data. They should also be good.

On the other hand, you're right, there are several undiscussed or uncritical issues in the film, presenting only one side of the story. Thanks!

My point is this graph and the correlation only. The rest is not so important. Time will tell what will become of the continued rise in CO2 level.

In particular, one mistake refers to data going back 1/2 a billion years ago, but have there been humans in any form 1/2 billion years ago? I believe not! The document of the link also mentions 850 000 years ago when there's not humans in any form either so it's alright. I think it's necessary to keep a scope where the human kind is alive! You can't say that something isn't pollution when human kind dies from it! We are the masters of planet Earth and we'll have to manage it so that we continue the progress of consciousness and knowledge in that the human kind is a part of its future! In this sense, I'm very skeptical of Error 30, the link mentions, as I don't think it's valid to give a scope greater than human existence.

All good! Cheers!

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Rortabend » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:31 pm

I strongly doubt that man made climate change is the key driver in the temperature. Greenland being mapped by the vikings clearly shows how the temperature can change without us.
You believe in vikings but not climate change or evolution?!

How do you know that vikings existed? Were you there? Did you meet one of them?

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Wootah » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:49 pm

Rortabend wrote:
I strongly doubt that man made climate change is the key driver in the temperature. Greenland being mapped by the vikings clearly shows how the temperature can change without us.
You believe in vikings but not climate change or evolution?!

How do you know that vikings existed? Were you there? Did you meet one of them?
Not sure you are being serious.

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Rortabend » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:04 pm

Absolutely serious. How do you know that vikings existed? I've certainly never seen one.

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Rortabend » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:15 pm

Although I have been sucked into yet another round of 'bait the creationist' I would like to congratulate Aexintro on actually doing some philosophy on the forum. This doesn't happen very often so please enjoy it while it lasts.

Wootah
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Wootah » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:28 pm

Rortabend wrote:Absolutely serious. How do you know that vikings existed? I've certainly never seen one.
Really? Oh sorry thought you were being facetious.

As with all things in this day and age start with wikipedia. I am certain you can use a library and that there would be other sources on the Internet to learn more about these people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking

But I don't think this is the thread to digress to much into vikings. If you wish to talk more about them start a thread and see where it goes.

User avatar
Rortabend
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:36 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Rortabend » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:45 pm

I know all about what people say about the vikings. I just doubt that they existed.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10936
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:01 pm

Would this thing about the 'vikings' be because they weren't a race as such but an activity. So the Nordics went 'vikining' rather than were 'vikings'. That we know this is true is because we have established historical records attesting to the fact whereas the models we use to predict climate change are still open to interpretation? Not that I think we are not affecting the climate, just that I'm undecided whether it'll stop if we stopped as it appears that we are in a warming period of the Earths weather. That we may be 'speeding' the process is the issue I suppose.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Imre Lakatos & Evolution Theory

Post by Aetixintro » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:07 pm

Thanks a lot, Rortabend! You're quite the philosopher, yourself. I keep remembering our exchange on the issue of Hume's Custom or Habit! It was excellent!

Keep up the good work! Please, continue enjoying the New Year! :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest