February 14th, 2013
by Max Andrews
The bulk of my graduate research is focused on the work and thought of Max Tegmark, an MIT astrophysicist/cosmologist, who’s responsible for a tremendous contribution to multiverse models. In honor of Charles Darwin’s 204th birthday he did an article for the Huffington Post, “Celebrating Darwin: Religion and Science are Closer Than You Think.” There are some very interesting survey results regarding faith and conflict between evolution and big bang cosmology.
So is there a conflict between science and religion? The religious organizations representing most Americans clearly don’t think so. Interestingly, the science organizations representing most American scientists don’t think so either: For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science states that science and religion “live together quite comfortably, including in the minds of many scientists.” This shows that the main divide in the U.S. origins debate isn’t between science and religion, but between a small fundamentalist minority and mainstream religious communities who embrace science.
read more »
Posted in Science and Religion | 6 Comments »
February 11th, 2013
by Max Andrews
Question:
I’m not grasping the foundations of some claims in your paper “What’s Science…..” I realize, or think I realize, that you are expanding on concepts relating to the subject matter as introduced by other philosophers.
Choosing to accept Augustinian Science as inclusive of metaphysical presuppositions is in an of itself not scientific, as there is no way to reliably ascertain a metaphysical construct relative to a physical construct. How can you demonstrate any kind of cause and effect? In addition, some things that were assumed to be metaphysical are now known to be physical as a result of rigorous scientific analysis. I’m referring to our ability to artificially manipulate cognition during neurosurgery in coordination with fMRI and other scanning resources. If I’m misreading please let me know. Can you provide examples of scientific theories that are not founded in empiricism? How can metaphysical evidence be reliable when it is not falsifiable? But is there an example of scientific theories that are not falsifiable? I can’t think of any. I’m not suggesting that a pseudoscientific claim cannot be falsifiable, but I don’t see how a theory that is based on data accumulation, investigation, analysis, review and verification can be defined as unfalsifiable. It would render the review process inconsequential. Theories that are falsifiable promote, require, continued investigation as no theories are an end in themselves. The reason I bring this is because your article says that falsifiability is not required..and I don’t see how that is in fact conclusive. Is there a specific definition of science that you are basing your views on?
read more »
Posted in Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Science | 1 Comment »
January 14th, 2013
by Max Andrews
There isn’t a straight line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience (PS), which is universally applicable in all fields categorized as scientific. A general guide for demarcating between the two is that the theory should have observable evidence, provides predictions, uses non-controversial reasoning, and is repeatable. These are simply guidelines and do not necessarily count as criteria for disqualifying a theory if all aren’t met because some are simply untenable depending on the field in which they are applied. Falsification is not necessary for a scientific theory but it does help substantiate the theory as a robust scientific theory.
When considering the criterion of observable evidence I make the distinction between observation and what is empirical. Something may be observed and qualify as evidence even though it’s not related to material causes. This is where the distinction between Duhemian science and Augustinian science must be made. I would deny the use of Duhemian science. This method, or philosophy, has a goal of stripping science from all metaphysical imports. Augustinian science is open to metaphysical presuppositions with science. In the mid 1800’s William Whewell was the first to restrict science to only mean natural science. Pierre Duhem followed this idea and constructed a methodology, which barred explanations to material causes. For instance, agent causation is completely compatible with Augustinian science but is prohibited as a scientific explanation in Duhemian science. Agent causation is something that can be observed but isn’t necessarily reductionistic in the material sense as with material causation because agent causation has metaphysical import.
read more »
Posted in Philosophy of Science | 5 Comments »
September 24th, 2012
by Max Andrews
I was listening to William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith podcast on Sean Carroll on Science and God Part 1 this morning as I was walking from the parking lot into my office at University today, and I was quite surprised to hear a generalization Dr. Craig made concerning intelligent design.
Dr. Craig discusses how no models of the universe involve God. (This discussion begins around the 7 minute mark.) I think he’s correct in that we don’t have a physical theory of the universe that uses God as an entity in its explanation. For instance, you’ll find no entity in the standard model of particle physics that denotes God. However, Craig says that you do find this in the proponents of intelligent design theory “who want to postulate God as an entity in a scientific theory–that God would be like a quark, or a black hole, or a quantum field. He would be a theoretical entity postulated in a scientific theory.”
I have no doubt that there are intelligent design proponents, i.e. [young earth] creationists, who do this, but importing creationism into intelligent design theory strips ID for what it actually says.
read more »
Posted in Intelligent Design, William Lane Craig | 7 Comments »
September 6th, 2012
by Max Andrews
A groundbreaking paper in Nature reports the results of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project, which has detected evidence of function for the “vast majority” of the human genome. Titled “An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome,” the paper finds an “unprecedented number of functional elements,” where “a surprisingly large amount of the human genome” appears functional. Based upon current knowledge, the paper concludes that at least 80% of the human genome is now known to be functional:
The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.(The ENCODE Project Consortium, “An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome,” Nature, Vol. 489:57-74 (September 6, 2012) (emphasis added))
read more »
Posted in Evolution | 1 Comment »
August 4th, 2012
by Max Andrews
Evolutionary Theories of Marriage and Mating
“All those who have most closely studied the subject, and whose judgment is worth much more than mine, believe that communal marriage was the original and universal form throughout the world, including the intermarriage of brothers and sisters.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Book II, pp. 358-358
The Kinsey Revolution (Alfred Kinsey)
- Grew up in South Orange, NJ
- Classmates predicted as “second Darwin”
- Earned doctorate from Harvard, majoring in animal and plant taxonomy
- Early work on gall wasps, but switched focus to human sexuality in 1930’s
- By 1940’s received funding from the National Academy of Sciences and Rockefeller Foundation for study of human sexuality
- Sexual Behavior in the Human Male released in 1948.
- Reduced sexuality in the “human animal” to the product of normal mammalian biology
- Claimed his research was neutral and value-free, but his comments undercut this claim
- Kinsey’s unorthodox personal life
- Pressured associates to engage in mutual sex
- Engaged in masochistic sexual activities
- Pressured students to submit to invasive interviews
- Hated religion
read more »
Posted in Culture, Darwinism | No Comments »
August 3rd, 2012
by Max Andrews
Darwinism is a multipart theory. Some parts may be right, others may be wrong. It’s important to distinguish what is right and what is wrong.
- Common descent (interesting, but trivial)
- Natural selection (interesting, but trivial)
- Random mutation
- The critical claim of Darwinism is the sufficiency of random mutation
The problem of rugged evolutionary fitness landscape
read more »
Posted in Darwinism, Evolution | No Comments »
July 2nd, 2012
by Max Andrews
The Pre-Socratics were the first philosophers of science. They were known as the sophos (the wise ones). They were ecliplised by the British and German philosophers of science in the seventeenth century and were largely disconnected from science hence forth. Science sets the agenda, but philosophers bring philosophical reasons instead of scientific reasons. Science answers the questions. The Pre-Socratics were the first to deal with metaphysics and did so to provide a rational philosophy. This allowed for a rational and objective observation and the use of reason to systematize and order the content to make it coherent.
The Sophists were worldly-wise in contrast with the sophos–frustrated by the plurality of answers in the current philosophy. The Sophists were the original skeptics as evidenced in Pyrrho. They came out of the sixth century BC and broke away from religious dogma, which had never happened before. Their methods were pragmatic and subjective–rhetorical and fashionable. The phrase, “The One and the Many” became important. The One (reality) had everything related to it (Many). This is where we get Monism–the quality of oneness. We see Monism appear later in Leibniz’s monads, which take us to a single substance and leads to atomic theory.
read more »
Posted in Philosophy of Science | 1 Comment »
June 25th, 2012
by Max Andrews
Reblogged from Ann Gauger.
Comparing DNA sequences and estimating by how many nucleotides we differ from chimps doesn’t tell us much about what makes us human. Many of those nucleotide differences have no effect, because they are the product of neutral mutation and genetic drift. While these neutral mutations may affect the over-all mutation count, they don’t answer how many mutations are required for the transition from chimp-like to human.
This problem is analogous to one we examined concerning protein evolution last year in the journal BIO-Complexity (Gauger and Axe 2011). Converting one protein to another’s function can be viewed as a version, in miniature, of converting one species to another. But it is much easier to convert proteins than species.
read more »
Posted in Evolution, Intelligent Design | No Comments »
