Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Science and Stuff > Creation & Alternative Science

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04 Dec 2017, 12:54 PM   #681754 / #1
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,427
Default Just So Stories, and an Unpleasant Thought

Rudyard Kipling's (Wikipedia)Just So Stories are some origin stories that were inspired by the numerous origin or etiological stories that people have invented. In "How the Leopard Got His Spots", it was because someone painted them on some leopard long ago. That is rather obviously Lamarckian inheritance, inheritance of acquired characteristics, and the rest of that book's stories also feature it.

It's been hard to find a good collection of such stories, so I'll give what I can find.

In Greek mythology, one finds that the Ethiopians got their dark skins from someone driving the Sun chariot too close to them, burning their skins. According to Etiological myths, there is a story from somewhere that rhinoceroses have no hair become some rhinoceros caught fire and went into some water to extinguish it. That burned off all the animal's hair and rhinos have been hairless ever since.

In the second Genesis creation story, God orders a certain mischievous snake to crawl on its belly, and that is why snakes do that. I've found a much more recent story that Manx cats are tailless because some ancestor's tail got caught in the door to Noah's Ark.

All Lamarckian, and the Bible even has some Lamarckian genetic engineering in Genesis 30.

Though named after biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, this form of inheritance is an age-old bit of folklore. So one may reasonably conclude that it is common sense.


Now my unpleasant thought.
Postmodernist Creationists and Lewontin vs. Sagan - Secular Café
Lewontin vs. Sagan again - Secular Café
Geneticist Richard Lewontin celebrates some creationists as the Southern proletariat rebelling against the Northern bourgeoisie, slams the results of modern science as grossly contrary to common sense, and states that some rural-Texas woman "sensibly" refused to believe that we got any TV broadcasts from the Moon because she can't get anything from Dallas.

According to that argument, one ought to believe in Lamarckian inheritance rather than in Mendelian inheritance, and if one does so, then RL's career is totally destroyed.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 06 Dec 2017, 04:05 PM   #681832 / #2
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,213
Default

Loren, I've reviewed all those links, but I have to admit I'm not understanding your 'unpleasant thought.'

I would say that Lewontin's remarks-
Quote:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.
-make it plain that Lewontin does not understand the tentativity of scientific hypotheses/theories; that they are always 'works in progress', and are not meant to be unquestionably accepted, like some religious dogma. I've seen the exact same problem with creationists and believers of all sorts, who do not seem to see that science simply doesn't accept absolutes; given some real, physical evidence of gods, or God, then there would be scientific theories concerning such beings, or being.

Sure, there are scientific theories, such as evolution, that are so thoroughly demonstrated that we should be willing to accept them as truth. But given some new evidence of sufficient power- the classic 'rabbits in the Precambrian'- then the whole structure of evolutionary theory would be thrown into question.

But I'm still not seeing how Lamarck affects Lewontin. Can you expand?
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Dec 2017, 04:00 AM   #681853 / #3
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Loren, I've reviewed all those links, but I have to admit I'm not understanding your 'unpleasant thought.'

(LP: snipped for brevity)

But I'm still not seeing how Lamarck affects Lewontin. Can you expand?
He grumbles about how grossly counterintuitive some mainstream scientific theories are, and how he feels that we must accept them instead of more common-sensical and pleasant hypotheses like supernatural ones.

My point is that Lamarckism hits very close to home for him. He is professionally a geneticist, and he could moan and groan about how as a geneticist he is supposed to reject Lamarckian inheritance, despite it being more common-sensical than Mendelian inheritance.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Dec 2017, 02:00 PM   #681861 / #4
Ozymandias
________________
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,982
Default

The fact that Lewontin has these views says to me that we scientists need to do a better job at explaining our science. These seemingly counterintuitive ideas are actually not counterintuitive at all - they have just been badly explained. This emphasises how important it is to provide better funding for the public understanding of science.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 Dec 2017, 11:36 PM   #681879 / #5
Sey
Senior Member
 
Sey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Mexico, SW USA
Posts: 1,299
Default

Reality has always been counterintuitive.
Sey is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Dec 2017, 03:27 AM   #681888 / #6
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
Admin; Mod: Religion, The Smoking Section
 
Jobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 26,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Loren, I've reviewed all those links, but I have to admit I'm not understanding your 'unpleasant thought.'

(LP: snipped for brevity)

But I'm still not seeing how Lamarck affects Lewontin. Can you expand?
He grumbles about how grossly counterintuitive some mainstream scientific theories are, and how he feels that we must accept them instead of more common-sensical and pleasant hypotheses like supernatural ones.

My point is that Lamarckism hits very close to home for him. He is professionally a geneticist, and he could moan and groan about how as a geneticist he is supposed to reject Lamarckian inheritance, despite it being more common-sensical than Mendelian inheritance.
Ah- you mean your thought is unpleasant for Lewontin, not for those of us who see his errors here. Gotcha. I was trying to figure out why *we* should find it unpleasant.

Another thing I find problematical with Lewontin's statement: "...in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life...". I want to know just what "extravagant promises" he's referring to, and who the hell made them?

Sure there's plenty of things we old science fiction fans have hoped to live to see; flying cars, moon colonies, starships, on and on. And there have been plenty of scientists whose speculations on the possible benefits of science have proved to be in error, or at least premature. But *science itself* makes no promises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias
The fact that Lewontin has these views says to me that we scientists need to do a better job at explaining our science. These seemingly counterintuitive ideas are actually not counterintuitive at all - they have just been badly explained. This emphasises how important it is to provide better funding for the public understanding of science.
Ozy, I want to offer three quotes here, which AFAIK are all genuine.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." -John Wheeler

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." -Neils Bohr

I have to admit that after considerable study, (Wikipedia)Bell's theorem still seems about as counter-intuitive as it was to me when I first encountered it back in the mid-seventies. If you can explain it (with or without math) so that it is intuitively clear to me, I'd be truly grateful. (However, if you decide to take that on, let's make a new thread for it.)
Jobar is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Dec 2017, 06:06 AM   #681892 / #7
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Another thing I find problematical with Lewontin's statement: "...in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life...". I want to know just what "extravagant promises" he's referring to, and who the hell made them?

Sure there's plenty of things we old science fiction fans have hoped to live to see; flying cars, moon colonies, starships, on and on. And there have been plenty of scientists whose speculations on the possible benefits of science have proved to be in error, or at least premature. But *science itself* makes no promises.
I'm baffled by that also. I can only guess at what he has in mind.

He claims that it is improved sanitation that deserves the credit for extending our lives and not modern medicine. But there is a reason why that improved sanitation was built, and it was to avoid diseases spread by contaminated water.

Many infectious organisms get their hosts to transmit them to other hosts. Ways like inducing coughing and diarrhea. The latter is induced by a wide variety of organisms: viruses, bacteria, protists, and parasitic worms. Some of them are very nasty, like the bacterium that causes cholera.

When a cholera outbreak occurred in London in 1854, physician John Snow tracked it down to a well in the city. This was clear evidence that the disease was transmitted by water, and counterevidence for a long-held theory that many diseases are due to a kind of bad air called miasma. In fairness to that theory, some diseases are indeed spread aerially, though by organisms carried by that air.


Even so, modern medicine has succeeded in driving some disease organisms to extinction, the smallpox and rinderpest viruses. Some others are now close to extinction, like the polio virus and the Guinea worm. I don't know what RL thinks about that.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Dec 2017, 07:54 AM   #681895 / #8
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,101
Default

Statistically, it is probably true that measures such as sewers save more people's lives than modern medicine, but I wonder if anyone had cottoned on to the need for huge investments to systematically construct them if it were not for scientists like Antonie van Leeuwenhoek.
Hermit is online now   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 08 Dec 2017, 02:34 PM   #681903 / #9
Ozymandias
________________
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,982
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobar View Post
Ozy, I want to offer three quotes here, which AFAIK are all genuine.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman

"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." -John Wheeler

"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." -Neils Bohr
These are all quite old quotes though. I think most physicists understand Quantum Mechanics pretty well now.

Quote:
I have to admit that after considerable study, (Wikipedia)Bell's theorem still seems about as counter-intuitive as it was to me when I first encountered it back in the mid-seventies. If you can explain it (with or without math) so that it is intuitively clear to me, I'd be truly grateful. (However, if you decide to take that on, let's make a new thread for it.)
I have a PDF I could share on this, which is an OK explanation, but I can't figure out how to attach files to the forum. Maybe we can't?
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Science and Stuff > Creation & Alternative Science

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus