I got an "A" in this

So maybe this is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, but with all the heavy shit getting thrown around in the ID v evolution debate I thought I'd chime in. I'm referring to a article from MSNBC that's been everywhere for the last few days. (Or at least, google news.) A link to the article can be found here. It caught my eye because of the opening volley.

In his highly influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," science philosopher Thomas Kuhn presented the idea that science is not a gradual progression toward truth, but a series of insurgencies, with scientific theories constantly usurping one another.

Hey, I read that! I had that revelation! I sat on the steps of the library in th #footer p { text-align: left; margin: 0; padding: 10px 0; font-size: x-small; background-color: transparent; color: #999; } /* Default links */ a:link, a:visited { font-weight : bold; text-decoration : none; color: #692; background: transparent; } a:hover { font-weight : bold; text-decoration : underline; color: #8b2; background: transparent; } a:active { font-weight : bold; text-decoration : none; color: #692; background: transparent; } /* Typography */ #main p, #sidebar p { line-height: 140%; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 1em; } .post-body { line-height: 140%; } h2, h3, h4, h5 { margin: 25px 0 0 0; padding: 0; } h2 { font-size: large; } h3.post-title { margin-top: 5px; font-size: medium; } ul { margin: 0 0 25px 0; } li { line-height: 160%; } #sidebar ul { padding-left: 10px; padding-top: 3px; } #sidebar ul li { list-style: disc url(http://www.blogblog.com/moto_son/diamond.gif) inside; vertical-align: top; padding: 0; margin: 0; } dl.profile-datablock { margin: 3px 0 5px 0; } dl.profile-datablock dd { line-height: 140%; } .profile-img {display:inline;} .profile-img img { float:left; margin:0 10px 5px 0; border:4px solid #8b2; } #comments { border: 0; border-top: 1px dashed #eed; margin: 10px 0 0 0; padding: 0; } #comments h3 { margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: -10px; font-weight: normal; font-style: italic; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 1px; } #comments dl dt { font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; margin-top: 35px; padding: 1px 0 0 18px; background: transparent url(http://www.blogblog.com/moto_son/commentbug.gif) top left no-repeat; color: #998; } #comments dl dd { padding: 0; margin: 0; } .deleted-comment { font-style:italic; color:gray; }

Send As SMS

BlogThis!

Pea Soup

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

I got an "A" in this

So maybe this is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, but with all the heavy shit getting thrown around in the ID v evolution debate I thought I'd chime in. I'm referring to a article from MSNBC that's been everywhere for the last few days. (Or at least, google news.) A link to the article can be found here. It caught my eye because of the opening volley.

In his highly influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," science philosopher Thomas Kuhn presented the idea that science is not a gradual progression toward truth, but a series of insurgencies, with scientific theories constantly usurping one another.

Hey, I read that! I had that revelation! I sat on the steps of the library in the cold and thought about at least the first two chapters of that book. Let's see what else this guy has to say.

That is sometimes true. And proponents of intelligent design love Kuhn's argument. They see intelligent design (often called ID) as a revolutionary new science and themselves as revolutionaries. They envision toppling Darwinian evolution, once a revolutionary idea itself, and erecting in its place a theory about life that allows for supernatural explanations, a theory that makes God, or some entity very much like him, not just possible but necessary.

The author goes on to explain why this doesn't really work for them, citing example after example of where the ID paradigm breaks, but I can do it faster. (I think.)

Khun doesn't cover ID proponents asses for one reason. Khun was talking about the historical tendency to replace one paradigm with a new one, because of the new one's tendency to answer problems posed in the old.

Simply put, let's say there's a theory about how the world works. It's the latest theory, based on current information, and it paints as accurate a picture as we can hope for. It still has rough edges, holes, points of vagueness and other problems. Occasionally, it will be replaced as our understanding of the world expands, new data becomes available, or some lab assistant working long though the night has a flash of brilliant insight. A new paradigm replaces the old. The language used for discussing the problem becomes more refined and nuanced. The collective understanding of the problem increases. New solutions are offered and tested. New boundaries are explored, new limits tested. Where once we thought the world was flat, we now believe it's perfectly spherical, and with this new understanding are attempting to describe our situation. We're thinking about the implications of a perfectly spherical world. We're wondering if maybe the planet doesn't bulge slightly in the middle. New paradigm, new problems, better understanding.

Which is why ID doesn't fly. Genuflecting and leaving the world in the hands of our imaginary friend is not achieving a better understanding. It's not replacing old problems with new. ID is giving up. It's surrendering to our inner four year old and believing that Santa really left you that coveted new Barbie, the stork brought your baby brother, and that wasn't Dad dressed as the Easter bunny. It's willfully ignoring the string on Santa's beard and the liquor on his breath, and that doesn't help anyone. Khun's scientific revolutions are part politics and part popularity contest. That I won't challenge. But it doesn't mean that these competing paradigms are based only on politics and popularity. The people maneuvering and competing are scientists, the best in their respective fields, not Joe Bob on the street picking the fairy tale that makes him the most comfortable.

The point is, a little theory is a dangerous thing.

And I earned that "A" in Utz's class.

Previous Posts

• John Paul and 666
• I just love your big, sexy brain.
• So what's the fuss about?
• Robert J Sawyer
• Now the English are Making Fun of Us
• I knew it!
• Drunk Post Number 1
• More Pastafarianism
• I wonder if this is on G's schedule
• *Sigh*

 

e cold and thought about at least the first two chapters of that book. Let's see what else this guy has to say.

That is sometimes true. And proponents of intelligent design love Kuhn's argument. They see intelligent design (often called ID) as a revolutionary new science and themselves as revolutionaries. They envision toppling Darwinian evolution, once a revolutionary idea itself, and erecting in its place a theory about life that allows for supernatural explanations, a theory that makes God, or some entity very much like him, not just possible but necessary.

The author goes on to explain why this doesn't really work for them, citing example after example of where the ID paradigm breaks, but I can do it faster. (I think.)

Khun doesn't cover ID proponents asses for one reason. Khun was talking about the historical tendency to replace one paradigm with a new one, because of the new one's tendency to answer problems posed in the old.

Simply put, let's say there's a theory about how the world works. It's the latest theory, based on current information, and it paints as accurate a picture as we can hope for. It still has rough edges, holes, points of vagueness and other problems. Occasionally, it will be replaced as our understanding of the world expands, new data becomes available, or some lab assistant working long though the night has a flash of brilliant insight. A new paradigm replaces the old. The language used for discussing the problem becomes more refined and nuanced. The collective understanding of the problem increases. New solutions are offered and tested. New boundaries are explored, new limits tested. Where once we thought the world was flat, we now believe it's perfectly spherical, and with this new understanding are attempting to describe our situation. We're thinking about the implications of a perfectly spherical world. We're wondering if maybe the planet doesn't bulge slightly in the middle. New paradigm, new problems, better understanding.

Which is why ID doesn't fly. Genuflecting and leaving the world in the hands of our imaginary friend is not achieving a better understanding. It's not replacing old problems with new. ID is giving up. It's surrendering to our inner four year old and believing that Santa really left you that coveted new Barbie, the stork brought your baby brother, and that wasn't Dad dressed as the Easter bunny. It's willfully ignoring the string on Santa's beard and the liquor on his breath, and that doesn't help anyone. Khun's scientific revolutions are part politics and part popularity contest. That I won't challenge. But it doesn't mean that these competing paradigms are based only on politics and popularity. The people maneuvering and competing are scientists, the best in their respective fields, not Joe Bob on the street picking the fairy tale that makes him the most comfortable.

The point is, a little theory is a dangerous thing.

And I earned that "A" in Utz's class.