Inference and its role in NS (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 20, 2011, 02:58 (4866 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: Evolution is this case (Dawkins) is inference based on evidence. You tripped into my "inference is not knowledge" dogma once again...(Just trying to point out instances where your thinking parallels my own skepticism...I still don't think we're that different...)
> 
> Evolution and NS are not synonymous (see below), and I think you're being kind to Dawkins, who says that NS "explains the whole of life", which to my mind is not even an inference, let alone based on evidence. But I agree that inference is not knowledge, I do share your scepticism (even if I insist on spelling it the English way!), and we're not that different. On the epistemological thread, I'm confident we shall eventually come to an understanding, but the difference between us is that I tend to think more concretely than you do. On this thread, relating to evolution, both of us "accept" the basic theory, but there is one major difference between us, which is your focus on NS at the expense of adaptation and innovation. As far as the consciousness thread is concerned, I'm far more open to speculation than you are, but the reasons for that may perhaps come out later in our epistemological discussion.-Again, not having read any Dawkins--but having been a full-blown atheist previously--I assume that he for example, looks at the evidence of horse evolution, cut across about 14 skeletons at the Smithsonian, and concludes that there was a progression from horse 1 to horse 14; and that the explanation for each specimen was that it was under pressure of natural selection to reach the form it took. -When you look at palentological evidence at large, a similar story is told for many creatures. When you look at bacterial resistance, this is evidence on a micro scale for macro change. -I gloss over some details, but this is a fair representation of what I identify forms the whole of atheist ideology concerning evolution. -When you compare this explanation versus any others concerning how life has taken the form it does today--I find it a pretty convincing argument. So at this point generalizing to all of life is a natural next step. (Epistemology aside.) -Evolution and natural selection are seen as synonymous, but to writers (such as Massimo Pigliucci) he makes a distinction between what evolution was to Darwin compared to what evolution is to Evolutionary biologists today. Natural selection still plays a firm role. I don't have the time to read his book again, but the book "Denying Evolution" covers a great many of the objections you raise here, and at least offers a modern view on the current state of evolutionary biology. He does cover Gould, but in his view Gould still doesn't displace Natural Selection, only modifies it. He does tackle things such as the eye. It's just been about 6 years since I've read it and I do not recall his arguments around that.-If you're interested I suppose I could go dig up the relevant material and post it.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"