The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

03-22-2007, 5:31 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Philosophy of Science One of the questions that frequently arises in philosophy of science is the question of how much value should be placed on heuristics. Should a theory be accepted by the scientific community because it is heuristically useful, or should our sole concern be for the truth? I believe this issue to be especially important in the soft sciences. When dealing with physics, we find little value in following theories that are known to be false. Although Newtonian mechanics is an acceptable method to teach children, professional physicists would never defend it as a true account simply because of its ease of use. With biology, psychology, sociology, etc, the issue isn't so clear. I'm interested in focusing on the problems in biology, since the decisions in this domain have such a large impact on the soft sciences. What is evolution? This question has a straightforward answer, but the straightforward answer is highly problematic. What exactly is to count as a unit for evolution? For heuristic reasons, the gene's eye view is arguably the best theory available. This theory is also, unfortunately, clearly contrary to the facts. The received view has the advantages of simplicity and coherence with common sense, but these virtues are also vices in the final analysis. The hierarchical model seems closest to the truth, but is also almost completely unworkable in practice. Of course many have disagreed with my analysis of the problem, both in print and in person, but I think the problem is very real. Any thoughts on the matter?    Report

03-23-2007, 12:56 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Philosophy of Science One of the questions that frequently arises in philosophy of science is the question of how much value should be placed on heuristics. Should a theory be accepted by the scientific community because it is heuristically useful, or should our sole concern be for the truth?   It depends on what your conception of truth is. Scientific philosophers tend to use the scientific method to test for so-called truth, and this relies heavily on a pragmatic theory of truth, that what is true is what is useful. Heuristic devices may be useful for understanding complex systems, like the socialistic and capitalistic models which have never existed in their pure form but help us understand economic systems such as they are. However, there may also be limitations. When we talk about what caused the universe, we assume that the universe has limits, that it is contained, like anything else, and that something is beyond it which caused it. Ultimately, this becomes incoherent because something would then have to be beyond that and so on into infinity. Still, strict scientific method doesn’t help us understand some things about the universe, since we cannot experiment and recreate the big bang. We just have to use models, heuristic devices, as hypothesis and make adjustments as they become less useful. We can shape our theories with Occam’s razor, coherence, and correspondence. We can use heuristics with scientific method and anything else that works, that is useful, keeping in mind that useful may not always be true. That, in itself, may be true.   I believe this issue to be especially important in the soft sciences. When dealing with physics, we find little value in following theories that are known to be false. Although Newtonian mechanics is an acceptable method to teach children, professional physicists would never defend it as a true account simply because of its ease of use. With biology, psychology, sociology, etc, the issue isn't so clear.   Newtonian physics is useful for most people. Professional physicists may go beyond it in macro or micro physics, but they return to it when they deal with practical, everyday problems. Sciences like psychology and sociology work with theoretical models, heuristic devices, and we are still learning, just as we are still learning about the universe.   I'm interested in focusing on the problems in biology, since the decisions in this domain have such a large impact on the soft sciences. What is evolution? This question has a straightforward answer, but the straightforward answer is highly problematic. What exactly is to count as a unit for evolution? For heuristic reasons, the gene's eye view is arguably the best theory available. This theory is also, unfortunately, clearly contrary to the facts. The received view has the advantages of simplicity and coherence with common sense, but these virtues are also vices in the final analysis. The hierarchical model seems closest to the truth, but is also almost completely unworkable in practice.   Evolution is not as tight a theory as some mathematical theorems. It has little predictive value. It is only a plausible model of how species have adopted. It only seems to make a little more sense than creation theories.     Of course many have disagreed with my analysis of the problem, both in print and in person, but I think the problem is very real. Any thoughts on the matter?   I don’t think you have adequately defined a problem. You are simply talking generally about theories and usefulness and truth. What is the problem? What is your conception of truth? What is your solution to the problem of induction? How do you explain “validity”? Do you agree with Kuhn that our paradigm influences our perception. Do you agree with Popper that truth has to be falsifiable, not just useful?     Bis bald,   Nick    Report

05-03-2007, 5:25 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: Philosophy of Science Nick, I was initially setting up the problem by going over the general issues. Here is the specific question that I'm focusing on... Within evolutionary biology, do you believe the received view, genic selectionism or the developmental systems model to be the best approach? Second, and related, it may be that no single model or theory is "the best" in any ultimate sense. It may be that each are "true" in the sense that they are useful research programs, but that none of them are the full story.    Report

05-07-2007, 8:51 PM keapponlaffin Joined on 03-21-2006 Posts 67 Re: Philosophy of Science To provide more explanation, in case you're not familiar with the literature of evolution, here's a bit of an explanation of what these theories consist of... Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory (the received view) holds that evolutionary changes have occurred and are gradual. These changes occurred in branching patterns, the branching created new species. The mechanism which explains these changes is natural selection. Evolutionary biologists have come to a near consensus in regards to these claims. Those who disagree with the received view are not strongly disagreeing with its empirical claims, but rather are claiming that their positions have other advantages over the received view. Among the dissenters are genic selectionists and developmental systems theorists. None of these three major competing theories can be defeated by the biological data presented. The received view of evolution has prima facie justification because it provides an intuitive and rich conceptual framework for evolution. It brings together three claims: random genetic mutation occurs, Mendelian genetics and Darwin’s theory of evolution. For Darwin, natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change, and it acts on the level of the organism. This position is intuitive because we commonly think of the organism as the primary biological unit. Genic selectionists believe that the received view is wrong in studying the organism because it does not distinguish between interactors and replicators. They believe that evolution works on the level of genes. In the other direction, defenders of the hierarchical model of evolution argue that natural selection also works on units larger than the organism such as flocks or hives. Both of these claims are plausible because both genes and flocks can have traits which are not found in the organisms they are connected to. For example, species have ranges of distribution, and the geographical range of a species can be selected for or against as environmental disasters in a region cause all and only the organisms in that region to die. Genic selectionism is advantageous for heuristic reasons. Although the hierarchical model may be more accurate because it provides a large account, genic selectionism has the advantage of being efficient as a system of “bookkeeping”. The evolutionary changes in biology can be neatly tracked and categorized by focusing on the changes in gene frequency over time. The genes eye view still has the disadvantage of ignoring critically important non-genic replicators. For example, parasites (such as E. Coli), microtubules and the direction of flagellum are passed on, despite there being no gene or set of genes for any of these factors. So, despite its heuristic value, the genes eye view is not a complete account (and hence is not the one true theory). The evolutionary developmental systems theorists claim that DST is preferable because genes do not play a privileged role in natural selection. Instead, they claim that the entire “matrix of resources” must be considered. This view is noticeably more complex because it looks at all of the relevant factors. This is both the virtue and vice of DST. For those developmental systems theorists who believe it to be the one true theory, the vice is quite significant. The overwhelming complexity of the theory causes it to heuristically ineffective. Under this theory, any proposed account of one aspect of a developmental system must take into account every other factor in that system, no matter how subtle its causal relevance. For those who defend this theory from the pluralist perspective, on the other hand, this vice is not significant. One can accept DST as a holistic system while simultaneously applying different, incompatible theories in specific contexts. Two camps exist within the pluralist position: East Coast Pluralism (ECP) and West Coast Pluralism (WCP). ECP holds that the best theory to apply in each context is determined by the biology of the entities in question, whereas WCP holds that the interests of the biologist dictate which theory should be used. The concept of a species requires a similar evaluation. Several major competing conceptions each have both flaws and merits. As such, I believe that pluralism should be considered in this debate as well, although to a much lesser extent. In deciding upon which theory to accept, we should consider three significant values: maximum efficiency in storing information, recognizing and making relevant the differences between organisms and recognizing the branching pattern in the history of life. The major competing theories are the phenetic, biological and phylogenetic species concepts. The phenetic species concept is the oldest theory, but is also not generally accepted any more. It defines species by their similarities, and therein lies the problem. Which traits or similarities which count as significant is dependent upon the interests or the perceptions of the individual. Because an infinite number of similarities and differences exist between any two organisms (let alone any two species), this theory is unlikely to yield a principled account. The biological species concept, although theoretically ineffectual, is quite heuristically useful. It defines species by appealing to the free flowing of genes throughout a population. A species is a species in virtue of the members’ potential to combine their genes. By this definition, asexual organisms could not be part of a species. This highly counter-intuitive conclusion makes the theory unacceptable as the sole true account, despite its heuristic value. The phylogenetic species concept identifies species by looking at the evolutionary history of the organisms in question. A species begins with a speciation event (cladogenesis) and ends with either extinction or the splitting of the species into two daughter species (a speciation event). The advantage of this system of categorization is that it is rooted in the natural evolutionary processes, and seems much less of a construct of our own interests or perceptions. The problem for this theory (if it were taken as the one and only true account) is that it does not give enough weight to two of the three values stated above. Although great respect is given to the branching patterns throughout the history of life, no weight is given to disparity or information storage efficiency.    Report

05-08-2007, 7:03 AM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: Philosophy of Science Keap, the first question you asked in this topic was "Should a theory be accepted by the scientific community because it is heuristically useful, or should our sole concern be for the truth?"  While you just posted a lot of scientific content that suggests you really want to argue the particulars of evolutionary theory, I'll try to address the first question in a general way. Scientists are human beings with egos.  They want the recognition of people they respect.  They want position, material rewards, and the ability and freedom to do work that interests them, in the way that they choose.  Some are quite devoted to ideals of rational scientic method in pursuit of truth; some are more than willing to fight dirty to get the things that they want.  I'm very for the first and very against the second. You ask about 'acceptance' of a theory.  I think science shold be very, very accepting to all sorts of theories, and the funding of multiple lines of research.  We cannot see very far ahead down the road to knowledge, because it isn't a road, it is a maze.  Science needs contrarians much more than it needs consensus.  In fact, I think the term 'scientific consensus' should be an oxymoron.  Science should concern itself with data, not with establishing consensus in front of it.    Report

05-09-2007, 6:25 AM DonQuixote99 Joined on 04-28-2007 sw Ohio Posts 75 Re: Philosophy of Science With regard to consensus science, anyone who hasn't should read Michael Crichton's famous lecture, Aliens Cause Global Warming.    Report

09-03-2008, 12:43 AM David George DeLancey Joined on 07-06-2007 Posts 48 Re: Philosophy of Science Philosophy of Science about the late 1980's Thumbs up The Garbage dump and accelerated elevated conveyor belt switch direction of robotic characteristics and walled by a ventilationing system in which will secure the burning acquaintances of remedy, in which are sequence through filter system of circulating water over and over again exhausting the qualities of reconditioning, and perfection begins. And after a cool Day at work a distant travel towards the operational degrees of solar mercury gold and the installation,. The travel arrives to park at the tapping of a wall pole in which will charge the vehicle in soon to be in motion for another day at the office, which in fact had perhaps behind me been built in the place just left, in which has the communications of security from the circulation of charge and installation. The Wall Pole is venture from past times of idealistic Garbage Dump for perhaps the remedy of secureness had been to collect the values of home furnishings and parking attendance. To each it's own. And soon a securance of Time. 12:43 A.M. E.S.T. 9-3-2008    Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: Philosophy of Science

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU