Is it ever “settled”?
As things stand today, Darwin’s notion of evolution, especially when we extend it with the things we’ve learned in the intervening 160 or so years, has stood up very well to attempts to falsify it.
That’s what science as a process really is: that process of observing, proposing explanations, and then trying to knock those explanations down. Eventually, you have only a few explanations left standing: our best explanations for what we observe in the real world. It’s that collection of best explanations that we call “science.”
What isn’t science is (e.g.) climate models, particularly when they can’t even hindcast.
“Settled science” is a newspeak phrase that the Left has come up with to impose their policy preferences on us.
[Update a few minutes later]
Why biology students have misconceptions about science.
I think there’s more of a crisis in science education (as with all education) than most people realize.
It’s a pretty good article, but the comments over there…you can lead a creationist to knowledge but you can’t make him think.
It does give me something to do on Sunday afternoon, however.
The second article is awfully confusing to me. All these people made a terrible mistake by believing that “zebras developed stripes to avoid predators”. The end of the article gave the correct explanation, “Rather, given a population of zebra-like animals varying in stripedness, those with abundant verticals had a selective advantage over their plainer relatives: Hence, they were more successful at reproducing, and over time, the stripes prevailed.”
But I am perfectly familiar with the second explanation, and yet have no problem with describing that process as, “zebras developed stripes to avoid predators”. Obviously it doesn’t mean that the zebras did that on purpose, and I doubt that one person who answered thought so.
Same with another question mentioned: ‘imbuing nonhuman species with human characteristics (“plants get food from the soil”).’
The people who did this study are apparently incapable of noticing that not everyone is a literalist nudnik like them.
I agree Mike. In fact, the conclusion of that article has as much a fallacy as the premise it debunks. It’s not like the world was populated by X variety of Zebra’s and those with stripes survived. It suggests that the world was previously populated with more diversity of animals, and such diversity is slowly dwindling. Such a notion is akin to creation, as if God created all the possible animal species, and evolution is only about which ones survive, rather than new ones being created by variations in the natural environment.
Yeah – it reminds me of the worst class I ever took, and the one I got the worst grade. I failed the first test: one question was (fuzzy memories, something like:) Define Evolution. I wrote “survival of the fittest”. That was wrong; the only right answer was “natural selection”. Because that was the phrase in the book, you see.
I would have passed that second test because I never agree with anyone about anything 😉
Science!
Reminds me of the time I failed a math test when everyone else in the class got 100%. Since failing math was simply not possible for me at that time… Turns out the answers were in the back of the book and were all wrong.
The social implications of this seem to fit those of that second article.
They’re not exactly sure why zebras have stripes. It’s still being researched.
link
Some zebras even have spots, both white on black and black on white.
Someone who knows something. Please leave us alone.
I think the Zulu story is the best explanation I have ever heard. And the right one, since it attributes all of the change to the Creator. Go Zulus!
Wait… aren’t they…black?
Zebras have stripes because otherwise they’d be horses?
Zebras have stripes because checkerboard markings would clash with their plaid pants.
I have to agree with the majority of responders here. I found that article confusing, ill-defined and unconvincing. Rather than singling out science education, I would say there is a far bigger problem in the area of science journalism. I would use this article as Exhibit #1.
Of course, I am referring to the second article linked, as are most of the responders here.
BTW not a big fan of basing economic & political (polemical?) policies around GCMs either, Rand. And for the same reason you give.
Science requires precision but language often is used with imprecision. More than that, the concept we try to convey with language are themselves fuzzy. ‘Species’ for example is very imprecise; proven if you simply pay attention to how often adjustments have to be made in classifications.
Humans, being human, would rather win arguments than actually be right. Preferring to be right requires humility which is rare. Scientists are very human. That second article is making a hugely important point that doesn’t seem to be reaching its intended audience. It should not be so quickly discounted.
The first article, while making a good point that origin of species is not about origin of life doesn’t change the fact that one is required before the other is possible. Then introduces ‘a miracle happens here’ with its two headed pennies, accidentally doing exactly what evolution theory does. Inference is not science when it neglects method.
Also, there is fraud (similar to climate science.) Lamarckian evolution is false but that didn’t stop them from using it to propagandize my 5th grade class, when I was a kid, when they knew it was false. Lying has never been persuasive with me.
Honesty and humility have to be the bedrock of science. In our modern world they are not. Darwin had those qualities. Not so with most that followed.
Oh, yeah?!?!?! Well, I’d always rather be right than win! And I’ll go up against you any time to prove that! Come on… what, you chicken?.
That’s the spirit, MfK!
Even bad argument can expose good truth.
In my opinion the science is never settled.
The best you can do is have a model that gives you the best available predictive power. That model gets tossed when a better one comes along.
Often, better ones come along because instrumentation gets better.
Newtonian mechanics did and still does, a pretty fair job of telling you where the car will be 10 seconds from now. I was thought to be an accurate model until the instrumentation got better.
Orbital mechanics used to rely on the epicycle model until the instrumentation got better and Mars wasn’t precisely where it was supposed to be. That’s another feature of “settled science”….the epicycle model was patched and re=patched to account for various anomalies until it got really creaky and complicated and simply collapsed. Ellipses simplified everything. Works pretty well too…
unless you are going really fast.
I view Darwin’s Theory as the best available model with good predictive power. I do not view it as settle science because there is no such thing.
One nitpick.
Climate models in themselves are, yes, not “science” (and the current ones are, as far as I understand them, simply laughable).
But science certainly has room to contain climate models, and indeed any serious climate study and future proper science of climate must involve the use of modeling.
Just far better and more serious modeling than we have now.
No disagreement. However there are mathematical rigors required of models in order for them to be considered reliable. In the physical sciences there is also a requirement for a model to be conformal to experiment and measurement. Failing any step along the way falsifies the model, not the mathematics, the experiment nor the measurement. Better models will have fewer troubles in these areas. A perfect model will have none. A *usable* model will have no discernible ones.
Let’s just be blunt, no one thinks science is ever settled and the only reason it is claimed to be settled on the climate is because of political reasons.
Exactly right Wodun. Now we just need the bumper sticker…
“Settled science is politics, not science.”