So an old acquaintence who I never related to got in touch with me and wanted to argue about various aspects of a facebook comment I had made. IMHO he was being snarky – consistent with how I remember him – so I blocked him (first guy I’ve ever blocked on fb). But as part of a larger argument he wrote the following and I was wondering how you would respond to this line of reasoning:
"Can evolution be wrong? YES! Speaking of which, which evolution are you referring to? Macro-evolution, Mitochondrial DNA mutations that produce DNA coupling, and provide the basis for micro-evolutionary theory? or Neo-Darwinism? Steven J Gould’s evolutionary explanations? What do you mean?
And yes, just like they were wrong about pluto, science is not the last word on how things happened. And just FYI, so far, some-one has suggested that process that Newton formulated his theory of Gravity has nothing to do with forces, and these are imaginary. Yes, Gravity doesn’t exist as a property that is measurable and defined by Newton’s equations, but rather is a product of the process of thermodynamics. So, yes, science can be wrong, and often is. "
Of course science can be wrong. That’s essentially the whole point of science. That does not imply that pseudoscience is correct, however.
Science is a process by which we attempt to explain the world and how it works. It constantly seeks to refine, disprove, discover, and so, cannot be wrong in and of itself. Conclusions drawn by individual scientists or groups thereof can certainly be wrong, but theories that accumulate evidence and that are successfully used as assumptions in subsequent experiments are less likely to be wrong. A good theory is one that is exceedingly unlikely to be wrong.
Can evolution “be wrong”? I would argue that it’s about as sure a thing as one is likely to find in science, because as far as accumulating evidence and being successfully used as an assumption, it has been wildly successful. There are so many things which simply do not work without the idea that species evolve over time. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, adaptivity like that moth in England that kept changing colors because of the Industrial Revolution, certain curiosities in various living structures, the wide degree of similarity between species and even between phyla, the indisputable increase over time of life’s complexity, these are all consequences of the single premise, “life evolves”. If evolution does not happen, a massive collection of data and results are grossly wrong; it is extremely improbable that any compelling evidence could ever be presented to demonstrate that evolution does not and cannot occur.
The individual theories that explain the mechanism behind evolution are somewhat murkier. Natural selection is the eight hundred pound gorilla in this field, with genetic drift being a somewhat smaller orangutan with a bipolar disposition to it. There are a lot of ideas being thrown around in this field, some of which seem fairly crackpot, but also with many plausible and some that are extremely compelling. This is a difficult area for laymen (such as myself) to grasp because of how quickly the field is–I hesitate to say this–evolving. I’m not going to say much more on that topic, because I’d just make an ass of myself, but it’s certainly well within the realm of possibility that natural selection will ultimately be replaced by a more compelling, more elegant mechanism as the fuel of the evolutionary machine.
Some other, more minor points: Gravity does exists as a measurable property, gravity is definitely not defined even remotely by Newton (although he does have some pretty good approximations), and no one was “wrong about [P]luto”, they just refined some terminology.
Well, he’s right that the scientific consensus can be wrong, and it would be an error to rigidly assert the infallability of science in an attempt to win the argument by authority. But I would ask what his actual dispute with the conventional evolutionary theory is. It’s not enough to say that “something could be wrong with it,” you have to provide evidence about what actually is wrong.
I would respond by just keeping the guy blocked. He uses a bunch of jargon and scientificy-sounding words, but his “which evolution are you referring to” shows him to be ignorant of what he’s talking about.
Since he doesn’t really grasp the theory (but thinks that he does), you’re unlikely to be able to sway him with evidence, no matter how you try.
I agree. You won’t be arguing with him. You’ll be arguing with the half-misunderstood strawman that he learned on some creationist website.
You might remind him that science wasn’t “wrong” about Pluto. The definition of a planet changed, and Pluto fell outside that definition. It would be like changing the age of consent to 18 from 16. It wasn’t “wrong” at 16, we just decided to change it, for whatever reason.
But yes, science is often “wrong”. Otherwise, we’d be done, and wouldn’t need any more scientific research. And while evolutionary theory might eventually be shown to have errors, it isn’t going to be supplanted by YEC, which is so demonstrably “wrong” that it’s not even funny. Same with ID.
Sure, but it has a better track record than the competition, such as divine revelation or folk wisdom. Funny how these guys weasel on exactly what source of knowledge they want us to partake of instead of science.
I think I would start by mocking him for the “they were wrong about Pluto” line, and go from there.
Wrong about what, exactly ? It’s there, exactly where it was predicted it to be, it orbits the Sun alright, it’s a nice sphere and everything, “they” just decided it wasn’t big (or rather, heavy) enough to be a member of the planet club anymore. At which point Pluto joined an indie punk band instead out of spite.
What’s the big science failure there ?
Tell him to explain what he meant by that line, thereby exposing (possibly even to him) his utter ignorance of all things astronomical, which theoretically provides a segue into making him realize he understands fuck all about evolution either.
Nah, just kidding. Let him believe God makes it all work if that’s what floats his Ark. You can’t win against wilful, stubborn ignorance, nor do you have any incentive to try in this case.
You should find this person, tie him up, and tell him that science tells you sulphuric acid burns, and if he wants to believe science, or a book that doesn’t talk about sulphuric acide (the bible), and then make a choice on whether or not to pour the acid on his face
Thirded. I’ve had this argument with a misguided “friend” of mine. He stopped responding to the thread. I guess that means I win?
As an aside, for a good window into how science is done, look at the Wikipedia article on Plate Tectonics. What you will see is how the theory advanced over time as more evidence became available. There is no dogma in science (or at least shouldn’t be). It’s simply a matter of best fit of theory to evidence available at the time.
IOW, Bpelta, your acquaintance’s objection is a strawman.
Oh my god.
Gravity is force. It is measurable. It’s pretty real. I invite him to visit a sauna full of old men if he doubts this. Newton’s equations work just fine and are pretty accurate unless you’re planing to go to Mercury or something. Finally gravity has about much to do with thermodynamics as the “herbs” this guy’s on has to do with fresh salad.
Where’s ASS man when you need him?
To be fair, one guy with some respected credentials has suggested that gravity is an expression of entropy. But it’s a big leap from “one guy with a PhD said it” to “that’s how it is” and it’s rather bizarre that this guy would rely on science to debunk the concept of science.
Another answer: Evolution might be wrong (though it is unlikely) and all he has to do to show it is to find something in the natural world evolution cannot explain, and/or come up with a hypothesis with better predictive ability. If he cannot, then he has no reason to doubt evolution is the best explanation. And if you decide to unblock him, you might ask him to explain all those terns he threw out in his own words. I’m betting he doesn’t have a clue.
Yeah, religions never make mistakes like that. Just ask Galileo.
Let’s see… I’d probably address it something like this…
(only with more insults, and addressed at the guy, not talking about him… you get the idea)
Sort of a blanket statement. As a general concept, used to describe the process of evolution… no, it can’t be wrong; it’s one of those tautologies you run into in linguistics. Can jogging be wrong? You’re jogging… if you slow down to a walk, you’re no longer jogging, but it’s not the concept of jogging that’s wrong… it’s just that the term jogging has a specific meaning, like… jogging. If you start running, it’s called running, not jogging. Jogging is… the act of jogging. In that sense evolution cannot be “wrong”.
To be pedantic, there’s a non-zero probability we’re living in the matrix… or that the world was created by Bob last Tuesday and made to look like it does now as a joke. So, strictly speaking it COULD be wrong… but I doubt it.
That’s pretty much like asking which concept of measuring time you are referring to, seconds or hours. It’s what creationists do… once it’s conclusively proved to them that organisms DO mutate, and those mutations are passed on… they simply call that “micro-evolution”, so they can keep on thinking that they’re right.
You know… Yes, fine, I can see the second hand moving… but that’s just MICRO-time, there’s no MACRO-time; SEE, the hour hand isn’t moving. And they will not admit that a lot of micro-time will add up to macro-time.
They’re all parts of the whole, building blocks in the larger concept… and not a cohesive concept. The average creationist has a simple tenet; the definite answer to everything is “goddidit”; no arguments, no debate… it’s just the truth, you either accept it or you don’t. The field of evolutionary biology… like all sciences is in a constant state of flux, it’s evolving (pun intended). You might accept some theories in the field, and be unsure of some, and totally ignorant of others. There’s no one simple answer for everything, and that’s something many creationists have difficulty grasping.
Because science doesn’t intend to be the “last word”… it’s all about acquiring knowledge, finding answers… indefinitely; there most likely never will be a “last word”. Ideologies deal with “last words” and “ultimate truths”, science doesn’t.
Notice how the anti-science propaganda seeps through here? From my experience, it’s one of the basic issues in dealing with creationists; there’s an insistence of comparative function. The religious mindset looks for some sort of supreme being as the ultimate source for everything; truth, love, morality… and the assumption is that for the non-religious, there MUST be something that fills the same exact role in their lives, usually thought to be “science”…or in the case of creationists “evolution”. You can generally see it in the anthropomorphizing of “science” in discussions, it becomes comparable to god(s) in their minds.
Oh, and nobody was actually “wrong” about Pluto… better observations just showed that it doesn’t fit the definition of a planet; namely “It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”. It’s like… seeing someone as “tall”… until the moment you see them with other people and realize they’re average height, and you yourself are short. Their height doesn’t change… but as tall is generally defined as more than average height… the “tall” moniker just doesn’t apply any longer. It’s one of the things sciences do, look for better definitions.
See what I mean about the anti-science thing? The logic goes something like this. If Newton was wrong, and newton was a scientist, then scientists (and science in general) are wrong. 10 points for naming the correct fallacy.
Newton attempted to describe his observations regarding the natural world… and succeeded. While Newtonian mechanics could be considered just an approximation of a more comprehensive theory and only applicable under certain conditions… they’re accurate enough for everyday purposes. iirc shuttle launches are still calculated with Newtonian formulas, it’s only when dealing with near light speed that relativity becomes an issue… like GPS positioning data, where the transit delay of radio waves needs to be taken into account. It’s like… diving 10 apples to 3 people. You could say everyone gets 3 and a bit… you wouldn’t be “wrong”… you’d just be inaccurate.
Btw, that part demonstrates nicely the level of scientific education your average creationist possesses; Newton? It’s the 21st century, we’ve moved on since then. Relativity ring a bell? Quantum gravitation? Brane theory? Somehow reading an article on a creationist website attacking a 300 year old theory is supposed to help you crush the evil Science once and for all just as soon as you mention it. :rolleyes:
My thought is that it has basis in the concept of Truth. Most religious structures make a claim to possessing Truth, not just any truth… but a never changing, absolute eternal Truth, with a capital-t. I’ve never seen a holy book that declares, “it’s possible things are…”, or “as best we know…”, “possibly…”, “with a high degree of probability”… The aforementioned insistence of comparative function would ensure that they hold the same to be true to sciences, if it’s wrong in any minute detail, it’s not a “holy book”… meaning theirs is better.
The basic difference is… it doesn’t matter if some long dead guy was wrong or not, absolute truth isn’t the goal, and the structure of the whole doesn’t hang on one person… unlike religions; if a self-proclaimed infallible supreme being is wrong… he’s not infallible, which casts doubt on every aspect of the whole structure. Nobody worships Newton, people just look at the results… If the results are consistent, and the observations support the theory… it’s good enough.
I bet he thought that was really profound… :smack: NY Times strikes again. In a conversation I’d just ask him to define the words; gravity, property, newton’s equations, thermodynamics… and the process he mentions. … and fully expect to get a "Duh?"as an answer.
Yes, the newfangled theories are leaning towards some sort of emergent entropic behavior on the fine structure level of the universe, couldn’t care less at this time; I tend to fall asleep when string theorists talk. So what? People work with what they know… and keep improving. The houses we live in today are better than mudhuts or caves… it doesn’t mean living in caves was “wrong”. It also doesn’t mean that houses can’t exist.
…but I’m a loquacious bastard… and have a deep dislike of creationists. You might be better off ignoring him permanently. It doesn’t sound like he can be cured.
Yep, science is often wrong. I’ll go out a short limb and say that science is probably always wrong (sort of). At any given moment there are thousands of scientists around the world trying their best to find the places where science is wrong so that they can make a name for themselves. There are journals, magazines, universities, think tanks and companies everywhere constantly testing and retesting the ideas that scientists come up, using the ideas or looking for the holes or refining the concepts.
There are plenty of venues to discuss the ideas of evolution, even to prove parts of them wrong. The OP’s acquaintence doesn’t want to do any of the hard work. He apparently wants to just claim that two scientists disagreeing means that they are both wrong and leave it at that. Hardly worth arguing with unless you like beating your head against a wall.