Biting The Arbiters
Interesting discussion of the Times' review of Richard Dawkins' latest, The Greatest Show on Earth. (Haven't read the book yet. Dawkins usually does a good job, even if the subject of this book has been covered well in other recent tomes.) It's by PZ Myers at the fire-breathing Pharyngula.
I don't usually link to things without a discussion--Pajama Guy isn't that kind of a blog--but we had a recent discussion ourself that dealt with philosophy of science, and Myers deals with issues like what's a theory, what's a fact, and what philosophers of science have to say about it.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:15 AM
5 Comments:
Gould's rebuttal to Wade is basically correct, but on some points I think he is inconsistent.
We are free to define things however we like, and Gould has chosen to use the (common) definition of "fact" as a piece of raw data that is clear and imminent to us, and "theory" as an explanation (either tentative or established) for this data. Thus the Pyramids in Egypt are a fact, and the Third Dynasty of Egypt is a theory -- a very well established theory, which nobody expects to ever deny, but yet still a theory since we can't reach out and touch it or see it.
Dawkins makes this point quite clear:
Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.
But then he contradicts these definitions when he goes on to say:
And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
But this is wrong. The evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors is, by Dawkins' definition, a "theory". We can't touch it. We can touch the fossil record, the billions of species on the planet today, Darwin's finches, and so on. These are the facts that the theory explains.
What Dawkins is trying to say is that the basic outline of the theory (including the lineal descent of modern species from ancient ones) is firmly established and won't change, while certain details will surely be filled in or change in the future. And he's right. But he can't call the firmly-established parts of the theory a "fact" without contradicting his own definitions.
I don't think I agree (whether we're arguing over what Dawkins or Gould said). Facts are--as Gould says--things so solidly established it'd be perverse to deny them. John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence. This is a fact. Is anyone alive who was there? No. Is there any film of the event? No. We have historical evidence, particularly his alleged signature on the document, but can we be sure? No, but we can be sure enough to call it a fact.
If some conspiracy theorists started claiming that Hancock didn't actually sign the Declaration, then I guess we'd have to say "we have a counter theory--that he did--and our evidence is so good that our theory should also be treated as fact." So something can be a fact and a theory.
Geez all these great minds and they flubbed the delivery with a nebulous word like "theory" give me a middlebrow ad man and evolution would sell in the Bible belt
Let's zoom in on one specific thing. Here is Gould's paragraph, complete. I have added the bold font.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
The parts I made bold appear to unambiguously state that "fact" and "theory" refer to two different kinds of things. Facts are "data", theories are "structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts". This sure seems to say they are two different species. In his apple example, he seems to say that a falling apple is a "fact", and Newton's and Einstein's laws are "theories".
Doesn't that contradict his assertion that "evolution is a theory, and is also a fact"?
Or does he mean that one aspect of evolution (the descent of man from ape-like ancestors) is a fact, while another aspect of evolution (the mechanism of species change) is a theory?
I admit words can be slippery, but two different things can coincide. Republican and conservative are not the same thing, but you can certainly be both. Something can be both a floor wax and a dessert topping.
More specifically, a theory can be a way of explaining things--indeed, explaining facts--but if it becomes obvious that the theory is correct, the theory can become a fact. (This is my understanding, anyway, and I believe Gould and Dawkins agree.) There's a theory of gravity, a theory of atoms, a theory of heliocentrism, etc.--if you gather enough evidence, these theories become accepted as facts.
However, "theory" is popularly understood as something that's not a fact, but an (often educated) explanation of a set of facts. People who don't like the theory of evolution seize on this, believing it allows them to say "evolution is only a theory, not a proved fact."
Post a Comment
<< Home