From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:15:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.87956
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)

In article <1297@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>Tell you what: you stick to debate, I'll stick to debate.  Deal?  That
>>means you don't drop one-liners about the evidence of evolution being
>>beans, and I won't make any more cranial allusions.

>	Criminy, if you had wanted to have a serious debate, this would 
>not have got so far.

There will never be serious debate as long as you speak in complete
ignorance of what goes into our understanding of evolution.  Your choice.

>		      You spend most of this last counterpost providing views
>which support my most inflammatory statements !! For instance:

Bill, your vehement agreement claims are idiotic, as you continually
sidestep the essential points with platitudes and strawmen.  For instance:

>>the evidence doesn't constitute a simple
>>binary choice, but involves such a complex web of multiple and variable
>>sources that it's impossible to assign dates to when the evidence reached
>>critical mass.  Different researchers were convinced by different examples.
>>And not just because certain examples were more or less convincing than
>>others, but because human deduction is fundamentally non-monotonic, and
>>each researcher was exposed to different (even if only chronologically)
>>accumulations of data.  Third--the question is further malformed.  It
>>assumes that your categories (see below) are all distinct and can be
>>easily distinguished.  Excluding abiogenesis, this is false, as they are
>>all interconnected and mutually support each other.

>	One of our differences lies in the question of what concepts 
>are separable and which are not.

Then spell it out.  *Show* how scientists have missed the boat by tying
things together that should never have brought together, or vice versa,
or whatever you're thinking of.  Sly innuendos are worthless.

>				  Your are quite correct that the 
>question was deconstructionist by design.

I never claimed such.

>					   Since the Bible and 
>evolutionary biology are at odds, something has to give somewhere.

For example, what does the Bible have to do with our discussion?  You keep
bringing it up, as if it were some strawman that I fingered you with.

As it is, I wasn't aware that the Bible was at odds with evolution.  The
Bible does not claim to be literal in the sense that some of its readers
claim it is.

>>A valid question would be to identify reasonable terminal dates for
>>evolution and abiogenesis separately.  I'll only give very conservative
>>upper bounds--for most researchers, the critical mass was reached long
>>before.

>>>	- Abiogenesis ?
>>>	- Natural Selection ?
>>>	- Speciation ?
>>>	- Mutation ?
>>>	- Variations in gene pools ?

>>Excluding abiogenesis, I'd say the last intelligent dissents ended by
>>1905.  For the physicists realized that between radioactivity and E=mc^2,
>>their young earth models null and void, and not listening to the solid
>>weight of historical evidence had been foolish on their part.
>
>	I have to say that I thought Chris's reply was more relevant.

Probably.  My training is far more extensive in physics than in biology,
so I consider 1905 more of a turning point.  What of it?  I included a
disclaimer that you're going to get different answers.

Why do you say his answers are more relevant?  He was answering by ultra-
conservative criterion that are not generally obligatory in the world of
science fact.  For example, do you consider the fact that Earth is round
was only established in the 60s?  Do you consider the fact that matter is
atomic was only established by the first photographs (40s?).  Do you
consider the fact that Sun is predominately made of hydrogen and helium
to be in serious limbo until we land a probe on the surface?

>Once again, the interdependency stuff seems to be the point at
>issue. Why does science need to be a black box, take it or leave it ?

What *are* you talking about?  The `interdependency stuff' is the exact
opposite of any black box.  The fact of evolution can be treated as a
black box, but what of it?

>>I certainly wasn't talking about Genesis 1.  What's your point in
>>bringing up the worst case history-wise?  You still have a difficult
>>philosophical problem regarding *any* primary text.  The exact same
>>problem that natural historians face.  Why should we believe that any
>>such are indeed representational of its apparent day and age?

>	If you start veering much more in this direction, you might
>end up putting biology into the same deconstructionist vise that
>bedevils historical research.

Deconstruction does not have a vise on historical research.  There may
be pockets of noise, but meanwhile, the rest of us continue to call the
basics of the life of Julius Caesar, like the basics of evolution, facts.

>			       If that happens, your opponents *will*
>get the better of you, because at that time, there *will* be nothing
>but two competing, but unprovable theories.

This, of course, is the classic deconstructionist failure.  Words slip,
break, crack under the burden, yes, but mere words will not damage the
fact of evolution, nor conjure into existence this often mentioned but
never written out competing theory.

>>>>How, in fact, do we claim to know anything about Julius Caesar?  The
>>>>process of acquiring historical knowledge is far more subtle philoso-
>>>>phically than you imply, and by ignoring this in your own pet subject,
>>>>you don't realize what a complete idiot you look like by making such a
>>>>deal about the exact same philosophical questions that arise in evolu-
>>>>tion.  Which is why I say, that as a historian, you're an idiot.

>>>	Actually, I probably understand a bit more about the core issues
>>>than you are giving me credit for. But let's continue...

>>So answer the question.  How *do* we know anything about Julius Caesar?

>	I hope you find my reply interesting, even if you don't agree:

>	* The archaelogical record is not definitive, because it is
>       not self-explanatory.

Agreed vis-a-vis Julius Caesar.  For other things, the archaelogical record
is clear enough on its own, at least to say "here was a city then", or,
"these people were replaced by those people".
>
>	* The primary sources are helpful, but scanty. Caesar's 
>	own writings, assuming that we choose to accept them as
>	such, tell us about the events of his life, to be sure -
>	but more importantly, they tell us worlds about the man
>	himself - his attitudes, beliefs, general modes of thought.

Do note the uniformitarian assumptions that go into any such reading.  The
mere fact that we see recognizable attitudes, beliefs, and modes of thought
is not sufficient on its own.

>	* But the secondary sources are the real clincher. We 
>	know a good deal about Caesar because, for hundreds and
>	hundreds of years, men considered it important to remember
>       what Caesar did. [...]

I would consider this the least of importance.  A single coin bearing some
crowned bust and labeled Arthur found in the appropriate archaelogical site
(England, for starters) would do more for the factual historical status of
King Arthur than any amount of memory.  Or consider the Trojan war, for that
matter.

>>Of course.  I said nothing about judgment.  I'm merely talking at the
>>level of historical fact.  Was there a man named Julius Caesar, general
>>and emperor of Rome 2000 years ago, assassinated by acquaintances?  Why
>>should we believe this, just because we have a text that says so?  And
>>coins with his bust?

>	Quantity of facts does not equal quality of facts. 

Correct.  You get another point for yet another trite irrelevant truism.

>	BTW, having read Colby's discussion of periods of mass
>extinction, I would say that this is more definitively supportive
>of your view than much of your own logic, since it does underscore
>interdependency of different scientific disciplines, assuming the
>piece parts are all okay. 

What are you talking about?  I am doing no more than pointing out that
the human historical process can be made arbitrarily problematic if you
insist on focussing on the epistemological issues.  Yet despite this, we
consider the broad outline of the career of Julius Caesar to be fact,
without much difficulty.  So if you want to continue to criticize natural
history, you will have to come up with a different method, unless, of
course, you plan, as an historian, to remain an idiot.

>>>One of our problems in examining ancient ...  history is that we
>>>tend to make false analogies with the present.

>>It is not a false analogy that people were people doing people-like things.
>>We may certainly misread "bread and circuses" as just another welfare
>>program, for example, and misunderstand and misinterpret history (and
>>welfare) as a consquence, but the overwhelming similarities we read into
>>the historical record are enough to believe facts regarding the existence
>>of the circuses, without having to worry that we are really dealing with
>>complete aliens and have instead to rely on mere speculations regarding
>>whether the circuses existed, since aliens, of course, would be borrowing
>>our terminology in sometimes completely arbitrary manners.

>	You really are going to hate me for this.

Not really.  It just shows that the best you can do is word games.  If you
want to drive home the point that you can't argue substantive issues, be
my guest.  It makes it clearly that your objections to evolution are equally
irrelevant.

>	What do we think of when we use the word "circus" ? Big Top.
>Lots of clowns, animal shows, right ?

Not me.  I've never been to such a circus.  Most of my knowledge about
them comes from the comic books.  (You know, Burt Ward was an acrobat
before his Boy Wonder days, that sort of stuff.)  I have, however, been
to a mini-circus of the Roman variety, back in my high school Latin days.

>				       In point of fact, there WERE no
>such circuses in ancient Rome.

You're right.  Meanwhile, there *were* circuses in ancient Rome.  This is
a basic historical fact, and word games on your point won't change that,
nor strengthen your strawmen regarding the tendency to misinterpret on top
of the facts.

>>>				 Go find an old translation of Josephus
>>>and look at the accompanying commentary, and I think you'll see what
>>>I mean.

>>I do know what you mean.  It's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking
>>about.  Evolution is a historial fact, pretty much for the same reasons
>>that Julius Caesar is.  Difficulties at the interpretation stage are a
>>different issue, and certainly do not negate basic facticities.

>	Facticities ? Is this another commonly used English word that I've
>yet to encounter.

So why do you bother to talk deconstruction if you're going to have basic
reading trouble on this level?  I mean, the words `factious', `factitive',
`factitious' are already taken.

>	Hmmph. Back to the subject. "Evolution" is neither historical
>(being primarily located temporally in prehistory),

Word games.

>						     nor a "fact". 

Word games.

>Nonetheless, "Julius Caesar" is not a "fact", either.

Word games.

>						       He was a human
>being,

Are you asserting a "fact"?

>       and while we can use the noun form to make statements about him
>(i.e. Julius Caesar existed), such statements are based factuallly on
>other statements, which have to either to be proven or disproven.

No, such statements like "Julius Caesar existed" are not based on other
statements.  They are based on evidence: textual, archaelogical, linguistic,
and so on.  Similarly, while you may want to score silly word games points,
and make serious issues over the detail that "evolution" is merely a noun
referring to a general process, as opposed to the particular historical
process that is referred to by the word via the standard rhetorical tech-
nique of synecdoche, as is the case with using "Julius Caesar" as an
identifiable substitute for the man and various statements that centered
around him, you still completely fail to address anything substantive.

I speak and write in English, with all the rhetorical conventions that
it encompasses.  I will continue to do so.  Only a moron thinks this is
cause for disagreement.

>	Another obvious assertion on my part which requires no belittling.

Indeed.  The belittling is merely optional.

>>Personally, I'm a psilanthropist, and think these folks you mention are
>>idiots.  I chose the other JC for a reason.

>	So did I. But I'd be curious to know the reason. :)

More Latin than Greek.

>>>>And it's pretty much the same with evolution.  The primary evidence for
>>>>evolution is copies of copies of copies etc from the past.  Today's
>>>>genes are a rich written record brought down from the past.  And yes,
>>>>there are numerous textual difficulties.  We know that.  What of it?
>>>>Artifacts from the past help to flesh out the record.  And most of all,
>>>>our understanding is based on the exact same kind of network of evidence.
>>>>The past was different, but not *that* different.  Life was life then,
>>>>doing life-like things.  And the overwhelming multitude of overlapping
>>>>and agreeing evidence on this point is why we can call evolution fact.

>>>	True students of history get to the point where the data
>>>overwhelms them.

>>Exactly.  Could you care to state a point at which the data concerning
>>the existence of Julius Caesar, and the broad outline of his career,
>>becomes overwhelming?  And more importantly, why?

>       Here you go again, agreeing with me.

Translation: I'm never going to address the questions.

>					     Not wanting to get 
>excessively embroiled in YOUR leading question,

Excuse me, where do you think my question came from?  If you claim that
there's something epistemologically special about human history that
differentiates it from natural history, then the differences should be
spelled out somewhere.  If you think this kind of question is unfair,
then you ought to withdraw the original, and acknowledge that this could
not be a relevant approach to understanding evolution the fact.

>						 I would simply
>say that what happens in studying Caesar is that we run through
>the standard sources, think we know him well (ambitous, ruthless,
>power-hungry, great military tactician, clever politician, all 
>that "stuff") - then run across something, an incident, an anecdote,
>just some little insignificant data point THAT DOESN'T FIT. 
>Scientifically speaking, we HAVE to resolve it. We either dismiss 
>the data as irrelevant, or incorrect. Worst case, we decide to 
>change our theory - so we deconstruct the theory piece by piece
>(usually as little as possible) and try to put a new one together.
>But now we have two theories - the one we've "disproven" and the one
>we've "proven". But eventually, we hit another data point, and another,
>and another. After awhile we have a patchwork theory in which we can 
>barely recognize the human being we thought we once "knew", and have to
>reconceptualize almost from scratch.

Care to answer the question?  Is there some insignificant data point
regarding "the existence of Julius Caesar" that doesn't fit, is not
irrelevant, nor incorrect.  *When* does the data become so overwhelming
that his existence becomes an established fact?

>       Not knowing the specific answer you're looking for, I suppose
>some of this applies to Caesar.

Translation: Golly, it really was stupid of me to treat the question of
evolution as a simple binary fact, but I'll never admit it, noway nohow.

>>>		 It all seemed much simpler in high school, when the
>>>textbook said that A was caused by B, and that was all they needed to know.

>>Certainly the high school text book version of history, whether natural
>>or human, leaves out the messy nature and philosophical issues behind
>>the raw data.  What of it?

>	There is an article by Gould which I think worth quoting on this
>subject, something about "Fox Terrier Clones". I think it might be 
>worthwhile to post the relevant parts of it out in the very near future.

Meanwhile, what of it?

But having brought it up, that's one of Gould's sillier essays.  I think
there's a certain professional fondness for that fox terrier analogy.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)