evolution discussion with faith

Faith, I am going to ask one question per post.The first question is:Do you accept that scientists develop and test theory as their main expertise?

bump.Faith, I'd really appreciate a reply, since I wasn't able to ask you this question in the other thread.

I'll try to be more specific.Do you accept that, regardless of what specific field of study and expertise a given scientist concentrates on at any given time, he or she must first be at least competent in developing theoretical frameworks to explain the data that they observe, and further testing those theoretical frameworks (explanations)?

quote:

---

I have no idea, Schraf, I'm not a scientist.

---

But doesn't it make sense to you that the job of any scientist, no matter what they study, is to do science, i.e develop explanitory frameworks to explain their emperical observations, and then test them?

quote:

---

Seems to me to be necessary but I don't know how education in science is structured, how the priorities are stacked. You'd have to tell me.

---

Let me tell you, then.Developing explanitory frameworks to organize emperical observations, and testing them, is the meat of what all scientists do, regardless of what particular part of nature they study.Do you accept that this is what scientists do, first and foremost, regardless of what type of science they do?

First, let me try to explain this in a bit more detail, then I'll give an example.Scientists, in doing science, generate explanations of stuff that happens in nature. These explanations must have testable consequences.Then they test those explanations using various methods, depending upon the field, which are designed to find out if the consequences the scientists thought would be the case are really the case.Since there are usually several competing explanations in a given field for a particular thing that happens in nature, scientists also try to find other explanations that are different from what they think is the most likely one for why this thing happens.Given multiple explanations, it is important to determine what are the different testable consequences of each explanation.Example:
Do cigarettes cause lung cancer?This idea arose to explain the rise in lung cancer rates over the twentieth century.Testable consequence: The group of people who smoke cigarettes should have higher rates of lung cancer than the group of people who don't smoke.Test: Surveys and records indicate higher lung cancer rates among smokers.Possible Alternate Explanation:
Cigarette smokers tend to live in cities, where air pollution is higher.Different prediction:
Among rural populations, lung cancer should be equally common among smokers and non-smokers.(So, then one could do surveys that look at just this question, and so on and so on...)This is a pretty simple example. It doesn't require sophisticated tools or complicated laboratories full of weird equipment. But this sort of analysis is what science is, it's what scientists do. The specifics of how the testing takes place will change depending on the field of study.Now, scientists may do other things: write textbooks, give talks, teach, branch out into philosophy, have religious (or anti-religious) views, take out patents, etc.But none of these makes a person a scientist. The analysis and testing of explanations is what makes a person a scientist. To get a PhD in a scientific field, one must demonstrate that they can carry out a line of research that analyzes and tests an explanation (or explanations).Do you understand, and do you accept that this is what scientists do? I don't want you to just take my word for it. I'd be happy for any of the professional scientists on this board to chime in, and I could provide additional links/resources.

quote:

---

Of course science is dependent upon previous discoveries in science. I love to read stories like this too. In fact I'd like to hear a lot more of them before we turn to Schraf's main topic here. But if you must introduce it, then you can't just rest on abstractions

---

The point of the thread, Faith, is that all scientists formulate explanations for stuff that happens in nature and test the consequences of those explanations.That's ALL scientists, including Evolutionary Biologists, Geneticists, etc.You have often dismissed the work of thousands of scientists seemingly because the results of their work contradict what you would prefer they observe about nature.Do you accept that a scientist's main expertise, regardless of what he or she studies, is formulating explanations for the stuff that happens in nature and testing the consequences of those explanations?

quote:

---

you must give examples that demonstrate that the ToE has any practical application in science.

---

Medical testing on animals that has relevence to humans.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-08-2006 04:38 PM

quote:

---

convinced the ToE does not have much in the way of practical applications in science

---

This isn't a thread about practical applications.It's about what scientists are trained to do regardless of the subject they study.And it's about why you seem to insist that thousands of biologists, geneticists, etc. are uniformly incapable of the fundamental task of science, and have been for a hundred years.Doesn't it seem incredible to you that thousands upon thousands of PhD's could be awarded to this group of people who are fundamentally incompetent at the basic task of science?Do you think this is a reasonable position to hold?I haven't read the many posts added since I was last on this thread, so I'll hold off saying more for now.

quote:

---

is at best an armchair pastime, with no practical application.

---

Again, it is NOT my intent in this thread to discuss practical applications, as "practical applications" are not a defining aspect of science. Testing explanations is.Not all that is true is practical.

quote:

---

IF this is a recognition that most science doesn't touch on the ToE thank you.

---

TO use your phrasing, MOST everyday science DOES NOT even TOUCH on The Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System. This has no bearing on the validity of those theories, or the intended topic of this thread.

quote:

---

That right there should end the accusation that because I don't believe in the ToE I therefore do not respect science or scientists. I believe I also respect biology.

---

How can you respect biologists when you seem to claim that they, uniformly over the last 150 years, have failed to do the fundamental act of science: analysis and testing of explanations?

quote:

---

But we are not in the business of proving the ToE on this thread, but proving that it has practical applications in scientific work.

---

If that's what you think this thread is about, then I've done a poor job getting my point across, or I misunderstand what you mean."Practical applications" is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the analysis and testing of explanations. Whether something is "practical" or not is not important to understanding science.Scientific explanations must have testable consequences. Scientists figure out the consequences of explanations, and proceed to test them.Do you accept that this is the main expertise of all scientists, regardless of the specific field of study?My partly-hypothetical "smoking causes lung cancer" is one example. Coragyps' real-world geology post is another example. Both are examples of testing possible explanations. Whether they are "practical" or not isn't the point.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-08-2006 09:07 PM

Scientific explanations must have testable consequences. Scientists figure out the consequences of explanations, and proceed to test them.Do you accept that this is the main expertise of all scientists, regardless of the specific field of study?You say that "you don't know" if this is true or not.Do you think it makes sense that this is true?Would you like me to get some professional scuientists here who will also answer the question?Or, let me take another track.Let's pretend for a moment that you accept that generating explanations for the things that happen in nature and testing those explanations is the main expertise of all scientists, regardless of the specific field of study.Does it make sense that the thousands of people getting PhD's and spending their lives studying vatious branches of Biology, Genetics, and several other life science fields over the last 150 years are so incompetent at generating explanations and testing them that very nearly all of them have been utterly wrong to base their research on the ToE?You will likely deny thinking all Biologists, Geneticists, etc. incompetent, but that is the only logically consistent position you can hold.Clearly, if Biologists and Geneticists are supposed to be good at doing science, which consists of generating explanations and testing the consequesnces of the explanations, you must think that they are completely incompetent.If you reject the overarching explanation that they use in all of their work, the consequences of which that have been tested and found by these Biolofists and Geneticists to work perfectly well, then you must conclude that they are so poor at developing explantions and testing their consequences that they have continued to get it completely wrong for 150 years.(BTW, you are an Evolutionist.)This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 08:31 AM

Can the professional scientists here at EvC please comment on the following statement:Do you accept that the main expertise of a professional scientist regardless of their field of study is to generate explanations of natural phenomena and test (using various methods depending upon the field) the consequences of those explanations?

quote:

---

I have no disrespect whatever for any science whatever.

---

Does it make sense that the thousands of people getting PhD's and spending their lives studying vatious branches of Biology, Genetics, and several other life science fields over the last 150 years are so incompetent at generating explanations and testing them that very nearly all of them have been utterly wrong to base their research on the ToE?You will likely deny thinking all Biologists, Geneticists, etc. incompetent, but that is the only logically consistent position you can hold.My prediction held true, it seems!Clearly, if Biologists and Geneticists are supposed to be good at doing science, which consists of generating explanations and testing the consequesnces of the explanations, you must think that they are completely incompetent.If you reject the overarching explanation that they use in all of their work, the consequences of which that have been tested and found by these Biolofists and Geneticists to work perfectly well, then you must conclude that they are so poor at developing explantions and testing their consequences that they have continued to get it completely wrong for 150 years.Oh, and just to reiterate what others have said, the "processes" of imperfect replication and selection that you accept are the ToE. The ToE is not "based upon" these processes; the ToE is those processes.That's why you are an evolutionist, even though you don't think you are.

quote:

---

Then my criticism of the ToE should not get me accused of disrespecting science.

---

You accept the basic premise of the ToE, Faith, no matter if you realize it or not.

quote:

---

They DON'T "base their" research on the ToE. You haven't shown this.

---

Yes, they do, and you have been shown.But here's another example.The entire field of Population Genetics is based upon the ToE being an accurate explanation of nature.IOW, the predictions that Population geneticists make wouldn't ever be fulfilled if the ToE was not correct.Here is an excerpt from the Wiki, which is pretty good: But this is really beside the point.Do you ageree that Population Geneticists do the same basic scientific work as all other fields of science; formulate explanations of natural phenomena and then test the consequences of those explanations?Or, are they incompetent at doing science?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 11:46 AM