Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

robinrohan writes:

quote:

---

I myself accept evolution "on authority," but can't quite figure out a rationale for this acceptance. It's no good to say, "Well, it's obvious that you are convinced by all the evidence": the evidence itself is being accepted by me on authority.

---

Interesting question since I, like you apparently, am not a scientist and have to accept what I'm told on authority. However, it is within my power to investigate that authority. When I do so, and I find that no valid scientific theory stands in opposition to ToE, I feel quite comfortable accepting ToE.Of course, there are other theories. Trouble is they aren't scientific. In one way or another they depend on the supernatural. Science deals only with the natural and thus by definition theories depending on the supernatural are not scientific.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

If it's the work of a legitimate scientist, it can most certainly be repeated.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I know, but practical or not scientific studies and experiments are always repeatable. This is why peer review is both possible and necessary.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

robinrohan writes:

quote:

---

What do I care if someone supposedly "repeated" a study? I have no direct evidence of that.

---

No, but are you so skeptical of everything that you require direct proof before you believe it?It's true that it would require enough scientific knowledge to repeat cutting-edge scientific studies and experiments that no layman could pull it off. But other scientists can pull it off, and they do. What you and I as laymen can do is a bit of research on the scientists who performed the experiment(s) in question and those who peer reviewed it. If we find that we are dealing with reputable people, why would we question the validity of their claims?Doctors are a specific type of scientist. If your doctor tells you that you have cancer, you might very well visit another doctor for a second or even third opinion. If all the doctors agree, who are you to stubbornly insist that there's no proof you have cancer?As I understand it (again I'm not a scientist) there are many, many reputable scientific hypotheses which conflict with each other. Where this happens you and I are perfectly free to choose whichever hypothesis makes the most sense to us. But when basic concepts like evolution are accepted by virtually all reputable scientists, who are you and I to stubbornly insist that there's no proof of it?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Well I'm with you there. We've got a long way to go to convince most people that evolution is not "just a theory". It'll be an uphill battle, but as I see it the most important thing in the immediate future is to prevent the replacement of a liberal or moderate SCOTUS justice with a conservative one.With all the challenges to ToE being mounted by school boards all over the red states, the courts are our only hope. That's one of the reason I urged folks a week or so ago to join the ACLU. They're out there fighting this fight every day. They, and other groups committed to teaching science accurately in the public schools, deserve our support.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

PerfectDeath writes:

quote:

---

what i would like to see are varieties of these options because not everyone gets a choice it's either one or another...

---

I'm not sure how this relates to evolution. Could you elaborate a little?As for the abbreviations I used in the post you responded to:ToE = Theory of Evolution
SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States
ACLU = American Civil Liberties Union

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Yes you do, crash:

quote:

---

... I know the evidence as it is transmitted to me is valid because scientific publishing is set up that way.

---

Indeed. Thus, you've accepted on the authority of scientific publishing.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

It wasn't a "try".

quote:

---

Only because the evidence is quite conclusive that the information gets from the scientists to me intact.

---

I agree, but even though it's "only because..." it is still acceptance on authority.It seems to me that the issue here is the reliability of the authority we accept, not whether or not we are accepting authority. In the case of scientific discoveries / experiments / studies you and I both accept the authority of verifiable, peer-reviewed sources.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

crashfrog, this almost seems pointless because we're so close to complete agreement. However, I think there is a distinction to be made. The evidence you speak of is, as we were talking about earlier, often if not almost always impossible for the layman to produce for himself. He or she must rely on the authority of third parties to transmit documentation of the evidence to him or her. The only question is whether or not the third party is reliable. I think you and I would probably find considerable agreement regarding which third parties are reliable and which are not, but as I see it that is the real question.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

You don't consider the medium of transmittal to be an authority? Looks like that's where we disagree.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

But the second they try to make any arguments, the fact that they're not able to wield the evidence is going to be their downfall.

---

NOT! Polls show that almost all Americans accept either the biblical version of creation or the ID view. I might question the poll's working definition of 'scientist', but I think the numbers about the general public are on the mark.I think robin is right. Politics has everything to do with the popularity of religious beliefs and the rejection of ToE. Evidence has very little to do with politics, at least in this country and no doubt because evidence doesn't mean much to the average joe. He's much more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals than by logic or evidence. Witness the results of the recent presidential election.As I see it, the biggest problem is that few parents teach their kids to think.Expecting eveyone to do thier own research on all issues before making up their minds is grossly unrealistic. People rely on the authority of one source of information or another. Some of us choose the authorities we trust based on logic and reason, but most of us don't.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I think your being unfair, robin. Lots of people here have far, far worse spelling and grammer than PerfectDeath. He's not that bad. Leave him be.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

NosyNed writes:

quote:

---

...now we move on to how one would determine which "authorities" to trust. That can't be just on more authorities.

---

No, but I suppose we must concede that such a determination probably is influenced by our own personal biases.So far we've been talking about why evolution should be accepted on authority, per the thread title and OP. Evolution is one specific area of science where it is in fact difficult or impossible to observe any evidence directly. However, there are other areas of science (astronomy might be one example since telescopes are widely available) where it's not so hard. Plus, the fact that all science is based on mathematics makes a difference for many of us. Rrhain, for example, identifies himself as a mathematician. Thus he's able to investigate much of the evidence for all types of science for himself even if he never enters any sort of lab. I myself am not very proficient at math, but my mother is a mathematician. I have access to her and therefore I have someone close who I can turn to when I'm confused about the mathematical basis for some scientific concept.I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we can find a source of information that is consistently correct in reporting scientific findings and evidence wherever we can do at least some of our own investigation, we are likely to trust that same source to report correctly those scientific findings and evidence that we can't so easily investigate.I myself look first to see whether a source of info on science is biased toward supernatural belief. If it is I reject it without a second thought: science, as has been pointed out millions of times on this forum, deals with the natural world. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. Its concepts and laws cannot be applied to the supernatural and thus any authority that attempts to do so should be automatically suspect.EDITED to correct spelling error. Like PerfectDeath sometimes I type a little too fast, and sometimes I even click 'Submit Now' too quickly when I should click 'Preview'.This message has been edited by berberry, 12-24-2004 02:56 PM

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

robinrohan writes:

quote:

---

All these movements began about the same time--back in the 70s--and they are all responses to perceived declines in morality and religion (the wild days of the 60's).

---

The movement of Christian fundamentalism might have had a resurgence in the 70s but it dates back much farther. In fact, the word 'fundamentalist' as we've come to understand it comes from The Fundamentals, a series of books published early in the 20th century as a reaction to both the teaching of evolution and to what was called the 'higher criticism': criticism of the bible that went beyond simply the meaning of the text but dealt with deeper questions regarding the reliability, accuracy and authorship of the text.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

robinrohan responds to me:

quote:

---

The author I cited wasn't talking about the word "fundamentalism."

---

I realize this is a quibble so don't take me too seriously, but I think she was, if only indirectly. The hard-line fundamentalist movement she speaks of did start in the 70s but its roots very definitely go back to 'The Fundamentals'. I brought it up because it's an important point. If you want to understand the fundamentalist movement you must have at least a cursory knowledge of its roots.In other words, we're both right.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!