From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:58:33 GMT

Again, a couple of difficulties, this time epistemic/methodological fudging:

In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

|> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|> 
|> > > "A typical initial condition for a model of the origin of life will
|> > > consist of an ensemble of possible initial states, such as one of the
|> > > thermodynamic ensembles of statistical mechanics or some simple
|> > > combination of these....Such an ensemble can be specified by a simple
|> > > equation or a brief set of equations." (Page 107)
|> > 
|> >    Bullshit.  This means you need to have a particular model of abiogenisis i
|> > mind and there isn't one yet.  Again the "straitforward" proof can't be right
|> > because it rests on wildly unknown facts, e.g. the mechanism of abiogenisis. 
|> > The above paragraph is essentially "I will make a cool sounding but nonsensic
|> > initial assumption, the better to grind my axe."  You _should_ be aware of th
|> > if you're going to claim such "proofs".
|> 
|> 
|> If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
|> reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
|> non-life? Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
|> scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it? No one has ever
|> seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of lifeless matter, have
|> they?

Well, the "claim" is in fact a testable inference: if we can approximate the
conditions of early earth and generate living matter, then the inference is
validated.  Now, one might claim that, as we can never really "know" the initial
conditions that existed on earth, we can never "really" validate this inference.
This claim, however, is tantamount to radical contextualism, and I think if you
buy into it, then the only way to compare competing explanations is to see which
attempt to minimize the complexity and import of their unprovable assumptions.  
  I think evolutionary biology does a pretty good job of this.  Everything holds 
together after the hypothesized genesis of life, regardless of the character of 
this genesis; further, tests have replicated simple proteins from primordial 
gases and electrical stimulus, further consolidating the inference of biochemical 
genesis. 


|> > >> In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
|> > >> bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
|> > >> is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
|> > > 
|> > > Where did you get this "actual fact"?
|> > 
|> >    From _knowing_ that the parameters needed to make a "proof" of the sort
|> > you give worth spit are as yet undiscovered.  Until we find out how life can
|> > arise and get a handle on the spped and complexity of evolution ALL PROBABILI
|> > ESTIMATES FINER THAN 0<p<=1 are a priori bullshit.
|> 
|> I agree with you that, since no one can agree on a model for the
|> evolution of life from matter, it is unscientific to claim that it
|> happened. It is, therefore, an article of faith to state that one knows
|> such evolution occured.

Well, okay, but then you have to ask: "what isn't predicated on an article of
faith, and given this, how do we judge between competing explanations of the same
phenomena?"  Well, how?

I think we have to ask about the character of our presuppositions, our "articles
of faith" and whether they are open to the scrutiny of the logic which we
construct from them.  I call such systems `reflectively open,' in that they allow
critical self-reflection of their base assumptions from within the belief system
itself.  Science generally does this.  Religions, for example, generally do not. 
For instance, try hypothesizing a god-less system of Christian ehtics from within
the Christian belief system ... you can't do it, because once you question the
basic hypothesis of God's existence, you've left the system.
  Now, compare this with Einstein, who questioned the basic assumptions of
Newtonian dynamics (absolute time and space) ... but he stayed within the
methodological framesork of scientific enquiry while questioning these basic
assumptions.

I think this is a crucial distinction.


In fact, I think it is scientific to claim that live just happened, and to 
formulate coherent testable models based upon this unprovable, but well-
constructed and falsifiable inference.

For example, consider the Goldbach conjecture in mathematics.  No one can prove
it, but it has never been disproven by a specific example.  Does this invalidate
the usefulness or `reality' of prime numbers, or make the study of mathematics
any less valuable?  I don't think so.


|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Kalki Dasa
|> 
|> 
|>        -------------------------------------------------------
|>       |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
|>       |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
|>       |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
|>       |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
|>       |                                                       |
|>       |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
|>       |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
|>        -------------------------------------------------------


Loren King
MIT
Newsgroups: talk.origins