Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#161

Post by akiselev »

eeperson wrote: post #128
akiselev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as mathematics or other abstract structu…

I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific method can be applied to everything. Religion, or one of many other arbitrary philosophies, can fill in the parts that science does not cover. If you start with the hypothesis that the universe was c…

You can't start with the hypothesis that "the universe was constructed by a conscious creator" until you have some clear evidence that such a hypothesis is warranted. This is where science conflicts with religion. If you're going to say something exists, or that a certain event or entity caused an effect, you have to prove it. Just because we do not yet understand multiverses (or whatever is out there) and what happened before the big bang, just because we do not yet have sensors to see beyond the scope of space-time, does not let any self proclaimed philosopher fill in the gaps with whatever they happen to read from the nearest religious text.

It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a theologian, philosopher, or scientist, if you're going to make an assertion or assumption, you have to back it up. If you don't, you operate outside of the human body of knowledge that can be confirmed as true, or even remotely accurate.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#162

Post by Houshalter »

eeperson wrote: post #160
Houshalter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or t…

I understand that statistics are an important tool in 'proving' things scientifically. The problem is, you're making a philosophical argument against religion not a scientific one. Probabilistic solutions don't sense for philosophical questions. For example, what is the probability that P=NP? The lesswrong article you linked to does not disprove religion. You certainly can disprove dogmatic ideas that have surrounded…

>For example, what is the probability that P=NP?

I would say less than 1%. That is if you were to bet me $1 that next year someone will mathematically prove that, I would bet up to $100 that it doesn't.

I am not talking about statistics here but uncertainty. Probability in the Bayesian sense is just a measure of how certain you are of something.

I can't prove that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Even if we didn't have any scientific understanding of what the sun was or why it appeared to orbit the Earth, I still would bet at great odds that it would also rise the next day.

So what is the certainty that the universe was created by a conscious creator? Well we can look at all the possible explanations and assume they have equal probability. Then you can use Occam's Razor and assume that simpler hypotheses are far more likely to be true than more complex ones (and a god is a rather complex one as it has to explain the existence of an intelligent being with the power and desire to create universes.)

You can call this a "philosophical" argument or a "scientific" one, or something else entirely. Science is basically the same thing, assuming simpler theories over more complex ones, and assigning certainty to different theories.

Also there is nothing special about religion. All the same arguments would apply when talking about, say, the existence of an invisible pink dragon that resides in my garage. I'm guessing your certainty of that is rather low though.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#163

Post by eeperson »

Houshalter wrote: post #162
eeperson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that statistics are an important tool in 'proving' things scientifically. The problem is, you're making a philosophical argument against religion not a scientific one. Probabilistic solutions don't sense for philosophical questions. For example, what is the probability that P=NP? The lesswrong article you linked to does not disprove religion. You certainly can disprove dogmatic ideas that have surrounded…

>For example, what is the probability that P=NP? I would say less than 1%. That is if you were to bet me $1 that next year someone will mathematically prove that, I would bet up to $100 that it doesn't. I am not talking about statistics here but uncertainty. Probability in the Bayesian sense is just a measure of how certain you are of something. I can't prove that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Even if we didn't have a…

That is a gross misunderstanding of both uncertainty and science. Uncertainty is based on measurements made. The 1% you came up with is an entirely made up number. Also, science is explicitly not about assumptions. It is requires testable predictions. The complexity of the solutions does not matter. Otherwise we would still be using Newtonian mechanics for everything.

The problem with your dragon example is that it is testable. This moves it in to the realm of science.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#164

Post by eeperson »

akiselev wrote: post #161
eeperson wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific method can be applied to everything. Religion, or one of many other arbitrary philosophies, can fill in the parts that science does not cover. If you start with the hypothesis that the universe was c…

You can't start with the hypothesis that "the universe was constructed by a conscious creator" until you have some clear evidence that such a hypothesis is warranted. This is where science conflicts with religion. If you're going to say something exists, or that a certain event or entity caused an effect, you have to prove it. Just because we do not yet understand multiverses (or whatever is out there) and what happe…

That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence. Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#165

Post by Houshalter »

eeperson wrote: post #163
Houshalter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For example, what is the probability that P=NP? I would say less than 1%. That is if you were to bet me $1 that next year someone will mathematically prove that, I would bet up to $100 that it doesn't. I am not talking about statistics here but uncertainty. Probability in the Bayesian sense is just a measure of how certain you are of something. I can't prove that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Even if we didn't have a…

That is a gross misunderstanding of both uncertainty and science. Uncertainty is based on measurements made. The 1% you came up with is an entirely made up number. Also, science is explicitly not about assumptions. It is requires testable predictions. The complexity of the solutions does not matter. Otherwise we would still be using Newtonian mechanics for everything. The problem with your dragon example is that it i…

Science is merely a special case of Bayesian probability theory. You don't have to have evidence in order to assign a probability to something. In fact it's impossible to update probability estimates without already having a prior probability.

Anyways you can't say the invisible dragon in my garage is testable. Say you throw flour on it. I just say "maybe the dragon is impermeable to flour." You try to touch it. I say "It moved to avoid being touched." You listen for sounds. I say "it's a quiet dragon." Etc. This is similar to religions constantly changing every time some fact they claim gets proven false. I could always just say "the existence or non-existence of the dragon is outside the realm of science."

At the end of the day I still highly doubt you are going to believe there is a dragon in my garage. In fact I doubt you will accept even the tiniest possibility that there is a dragon in my garage. Well maybe tiny possibility but not worth considering. Not any larger than any other crazy idea people can come up with.

This is perhaps a very complicated way of reasoning back to the standard idea most scientists will tell you: "It's stupid to believe things without evidence" or "most theories turn out to be wrong."

As I said, religion isn't special. Everything here applies to it just as much as the dragon.

A good explanation of Bayesian reasoning: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#166

Post by eeperson »

Houshalter wrote: post #165
eeperson wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a gross misunderstanding of both uncertainty and science. Uncertainty is based on measurements made. The 1% you came up with is an entirely made up number. Also, science is explicitly not about assumptions. It is requires testable predictions. The complexity of the solutions does not matter. Otherwise we would still be using Newtonian mechanics for everything. The problem with your dragon example is that it i…

Science is merely a special case of Bayesian probability theory. You don't have to have evidence in order to assign a probability to something. In fact it's impossible to update probability estimates without already having a prior probability. Anyways you can't say the invisible dragon in my garage is testable. Say you throw flour on it. I just say "maybe the dragon is impermeable to flour." You try to touch it. I sa…

Bayesian probability still requires data as an input or your result is meaningless. If you start with a made up value and update it with more made up values, you still have a made up value. You still haven't offered any explanation for how you were able to come up with a 1% probability that P=NP.

Your example still isn't the same as mine. Mine didn't involve goal post moving. For your example to be the same, you would have to start off with a dragon whose presence is not detectable in any way. What's the difference between an empty garage and one with an undetectable dragon in it? Absolutely nothing. I'm not saying you should believe in the dragon, I'm saying that determining the presence of the dragon is not done scientifically.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#167

Post by Houshalter »

eeperson wrote: post #166
Houshalter wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is merely a special case of Bayesian probability theory. You don't have to have evidence in order to assign a probability to something. In fact it's impossible to update probability estimates without already having a prior probability. Anyways you can't say the invisible dragon in my garage is testable. Say you throw flour on it. I just say "maybe the dragon is impermeable to flour." You try to touch it. I sa…

Bayesian probability still requires data as an input or your result is meaningless. If you start with a made up value and update it with more made up values, you still have a made up value. You still haven't offered any explanation for how you were able to come up with a 1% probability that P=NP. Your example still isn't the same as mine. Mine didn't involve goal post moving. For your example to be the same, you woul…

It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though. I should expect to be wrong about 1% of the time when I make such a prediction (and if I'm not it's because I was over or under confident, and should adjust my confidence accordingly.)

So where did the prediction itself come from? My brain, obviously. And that's not a bad thing. Humans are generally good at estimating probabilities. It is essentially what the brain evolved to do. This isn't unique to humans though, there are computer algorithms which can do similar tasks, and mathematical formalizations for calculating certainty.

You can and should be able to assign a probability estimate to anything. When you open your garage door you should expect not to see a dragon. You should be very certain that you won't, actually.

You can't not have any degree of certainty about something. You can expect something to happen. You can expect something not to happen. You can be slightly certain that something will happen. You can be moderately certain. You can think it might have just as good a chance as happening as it does of not happening.

But you can't have no idea what so ever how likely it is to happen. You have to have some expectation of how likely an event is to happen, you can't have no expectation at all.

There is no such thing as a "separate realm" where ideas can't have any certainty values of how likely they are to be true.

As for moving the goal post, religion has moved the goal post plenty. From perfectly testable predictions, to less testable claims, to claims that can't be tested at all.

If you are upset that I, personally, moved the goal post, then just pretend that it was my ancestors that claimed there was a dragon in my garage, and my grandparents decided it was invisible, and my parents decided that it was impermeable to flour, and now I believe that it is a completely untestable dragon, and have decided that dragons are not a matter that is testable by science, and that I've been completely consistent with this belief.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#168

Post by eeperson »

Houshalter wrote: post #167
eeperson wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bayesian probability still requires data as an input or your result is meaningless. If you start with a made up value and update it with more made up values, you still have a made up value. You still haven't offered any explanation for how you were able to come up with a 1% probability that P=NP. Your example still isn't the same as mine. Mine didn't involve goal post moving. For your example to be the same, you woul…

It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though. I should expect to be wrong about 1% of the time when I make such a prediction (and if I'm not it's because I was over or under confident, and should adjust my confidence accordingly.) So where did the prediction itself come from? My brain, obviously. And that's not a bad thing. Humans are generally good at estimating probabilities. It is essen…

>It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though.

Wait what?

Yes you can assign a probability to everything, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but you can do it. I hope that is not how you prove all of your math problems.

I'm sorry I must not have been clear in my previous post. I did not mean that you personally were moving the goalposts. I meant that your hypothetical person who believed in garage dragons was moving the goalposts. I was trying to argue that your analogy was a straw man argument.

Also, your argument that 'religion has moved the goalposts' Would be an example of an association fallacy: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#169

Post by akiselev »

eeperson wrote: post #164
akiselev wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't start with the hypothesis that "the universe was constructed by a conscious creator" until you have some clear evidence that such a hypothesis is warranted. This is where science conflicts with religion. If you're going to say something exists, or that a certain event or entity caused an effect, you have to prove it. Just because we do not yet understand multiverses (or whatever is out there) and what happe…

That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence. Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.

I didn't say evidence of the hypothesis, I said "evidence that the hypothesis is WARRANTED" which is a very big difference. If apples don't fall from trees and matter is not attracted to other matter then the gravity hypothesis has no evidence for it to even be considered! We see apples fall and planets orbit and matter attracting other matter and so we think, there must be something there! So we investigate and only after much testing do we say that the hypothesis is scientific fact within the bounds it was tested.

>> Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.

NO YOU CAN'T. Why? Because the nonsense ("philosophy") you fill it with STILL REQUIRES EVIDENCE when you claim that something positively certainly EXISTS such as a creator of the universe. You can claim you HYPOTHESIZE that there exists a creator, but it is on YOU to prove that a creator exists, not on anyone else to disprove it, especially when the scientific body of knowledge, both theoretical and experimental, shows no evidence and no sign of a creator outside of humans projecting their own desires.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#170

Post by Houshalter »

eeperson wrote: post #168
Houshalter wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though. I should expect to be wrong about 1% of the time when I make such a prediction (and if I'm not it's because I was over or under confident, and should adjust my confidence accordingly.) So where did the prediction itself come from? My brain, obviously. And that's not a bad thing. Humans are generally good at estimating probabilities. It is essen…

>It is a made up number. So what? It's not made up out of thin air though. Wait what? Yes you can assign a probability to everything, it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but you can do it. I hope that is not how you prove all of your math problems. I'm sorry I must not have been clear in my previous post. I did not mean that you personally were moving the goalposts. I meant that your hypothetical person who believe…

You are completely missing the point of the Bayesian interpretation of probability and I'm not really sure how to explain it any better.

Let's say you have to bet money on whether or not P=NP will be proven next year. You get to choose the odds you are willing to take it at, and you want to do it so that you will win the most amount of money on average. The on average is the important part.

So if you say you are 99% sure that it won't, that merely means you would make a bet where you will pay $1 if it doesn't happen, and get $100 if it does. If you made a hundred such bets and lost only 1% of the time, you would walk away with just as much money as you started with.

The point of the thought experiment is you don't get the luxury of saying "I don't know", you have to actually make a decision of how certain you are. And you can't take 10 years to calculate how certain you are mathematically either, you have to make a decision. And it's all probabilistic. You decide what bet to take based on how likely you think it is to happen. This is how we make most our decisions. We couldn't go about our daily lives if we didn't do this.

I don't think it's an association fallacy. I am not saying "All claims religions made in the past turned out to be false when tested, therefore all religious claims are guaranteed to be false." I was just trying to point out the history of religions removing more and more of the actual testable claims. Because the testable claims are all that's left, since everything else has long since been proven to be false.

Post reply on HN