Leading atheist branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism

[tooblue]

‘What has gotten into Thomas Nagel?’: Leading atheist branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism


All he did was argue in a new book the evolutionary view of nature is “false,” and now grand forces have descended upon him. He does not want to talk about it.

The vicious reception handed Mind & Cosmos, which urges deep skepticism about evolution’s explanatory power, illustrates the perils of raising arguments against intellectual orthodoxy.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/23/what-has-gotten-into-thomas-nagel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-daring-to-question-darwinism/

[Rocker Ute]

I always find it interesting in these kinds of debates where people deal with absolutes.

My work we have created a digital publishing platform ecosystem that runs of a system of apps created by us and outside developers. Nobody knows our system like we do, we created it and we've set the rules of the game. Of course there are always bugs, and new things we find with it all the time as more people use it and as it grows and other apps get introduced into the system. I can't tell you the times where something is happening and I'll have an engineer insist that it is impossible for it to happen. Yet there it is, sometimes easily duplicated and traceable, and other times not at all. But they'll be vehement in their position, often times not ceding it even after being proved wrong.

What does this have to do with this debate? My experience in this situation is that as we move on, progress and evolve with our system we find out new things, many of which we insist could never happen, but do. I've learned to not say something is impossible, or completely wrong.

When it comes to other scientific fact, as our knowledge grows, as other ideas and systems get introduced, when things get challenged, invariably these ideas change. This notion that we know everything about a subject matter, even enough to create laws regarding it, is not acknowledging that when it comes to this world, ourselves, the universe we are only just barely beginning to know or understand it. Even if you say the modern era of man is only hundreds of thousands of years old, that is a nearly unmeasurable fraction when it comes to the age of the universe.

I'd much rather see us reach that enlightenment: that we really don't know, and often don't even know what we are really observing.

Oh, and as someone who isn't a scientist, and barely has an understand of evolution, I'm with Nagel in that the timelines of evolution in relation to what we think is the age of the earth has always been troubling to me, as much as I'm troubled by some people that insist the world is only 6000 years old.

[Scratch]

Oh, and as someone who isn't a scientist, and barely has an understand of evolution, I'm with Nagel in that the timelines of evolution in relation to what we think is the age of the earth has always been troubling to me.

Can you (or someone else) please expound on this? It's not something I've heard before; what's the basis of the debate regarding the timeliness of evolution re: the age of the earth?

[Rocker Ute]

Can you (or someone else) please expound on this? It's not something I've heard before; what's the basis of the debate regarding the timeliness of evolution re: the age of the earth?

Some can probably explain it better than me, but essential it deals with the probability of where we are today vs the primordial ooze that we came from was highly improbable to have happened in that short of time period.

ie molecules becoming a single cell organism that evolved into a multi celled organism that evolves into everything in the world.

It isn't intended to dispute the validity that evolution happens now, just that it couldn't have happened 'only' in a couple billion years.

[Scratch]

Some can probably explain it better than me, but essential it deals with the probability of where we are today vs the primordial ooze that we came from was highly improbable to have happened in that short of time period.

ie molecules becoming a single cell organism that evolved into a multi celled organism that evolves into everything in the world.

It isn't intended to dispute the validity that evolution happens now, just that it couldn't have happened 'only' in a couple billion years.

Thanks. Also, I have no doubt that you could have evolved from primordial ooze in a couple billion years. Maybe even a few decades.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

I remember vividly as a kid going to my dad and asking him for some understanding on how science could be so different from our LDS beliefs in terms of how old the earth is, and how long man has been around.

He said something to the effect that we have no idea how long Heavenly Father's years are compared to our years. He explained that the days of the creation likely had very little to do with our 24 hour day. That gave me great comfort and bolstered my conviction.

Dad went on to explain that as our knowledge increases we will understand that everything occurs according to God's scientific laws. I'm comprehending this more and more. I love the passage where Alma is instructing Korihor on the existence of God where he talks about the rotation of the earth and planets. It's beautiful to think that God carefully and naturally set all of this into motion.

Finally... One of our current gospel doctrine instructors is a PHD professor of microbiology at USCD. She said recently how interesting it is to see some of her colleagues from time to time get glimpses of God and creation as their own understanding of the intricacies of science expand. Many of them, she explains, come to the realization that there is no way all of this happened by chance, but that there is a very thoughtful and intelligent master planner and originator out there somewhere. She smiles and tells them, "God and science coexist because He is the one who created scientific laws in the first place. One follows the other."

[UtahDan]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The same way that gravity is a fact. That both occur and are fundamental processes/forces on our world is not in dispute. They are readily observable and easily reproduced. The precise mechanism of each is not fully understood and the evolutionary history of any living thing is necessarily limited by what we can dig up (though genetics is casting huge light on this). But the uncertainly about how exactly evolution functioned through history or works now should not be conflated with uncertainty about whether evolution occurs and is the mechanism by which the great variety of life on this planet arose. People like to suggest that because the details are still up for grabs that the whole think might one day be replaced by something else and that is flatly wrong.

[GarthUte]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The same way that gravity is a fact. That both occur and are fundamental processes/forces on our world is not in dispute. They are readily observable and easily reproduced. The precise mechanism of each is not fully understood and the evolutionary history of any living thing is necessarily limited by what we can dig up (though genetics is casting huge light on this). But the uncertainly about how exactly evolution functioned through history or works now should not be conflated with uncertainty about whether evolution occurs and is the mechanism by which the great variety of life on this planet arose. People like to suggest that because the details are still up for grabs that the whole think might one day be replaced by something else and that is flatly wrong.

When you say evolution is not a theory but a fact, do you mean Darwinism?

Edit: I've always been under the impression that gravity is a law, not a fact, so I think evolution and gravity would be apples vs. oranges.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The same way that gravity is a fact. That both occur and are fundamental processes/forces on our world is not in dispute. They are readily observable and easily reproduced. The precise mechanism of each is not fully understood and the evolutionary history of any living thing is necessarily limited by what we can dig up (though genetics is casting huge light on this). But the uncertainly about how exactly evolution functioned through history or works now should not be conflated with uncertainty about whether evolution occurs and is the mechanism by which the great variety of life on this planet arose. People like to suggest that because the details are still up for grabs that the whole think might one day be replaced by something else and that is flatly wrong.

Phsaw... You and your facts and logic. Next thing you know, you will be telling us that man can impact climate change.

[Rocker Ute]

Thanks. Also, I have no doubt that you could have evolved from primordial ooze in a couple billion years. Maybe even a few decades.

I thought of a flagellum joke that probably isn't appropriate.

[UtahDan]

This kind of statement is dangerous because it depends on what you mean by evolution. You explained it very well, but it's important to remember that different people say evolution and mean very different things.

I don't think this is true with evolution. We cannot reproduce evolution experiments for obvious reasons. We can do the fruit fly thing and see some genetic variation within a few days, but we can't do a controlled experiment running a billion years to find out why I like cheeseburgers.

I didn't realize there were multiple definitions of evolution. I'm giving that word its most common, ordinary meaning. Is there some other meaning I should be taking into account? Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by "true" evolution. We can watch it take place in fruit flies, it's readily observable in domesticated animals and plants. We can look at genomes and see what they have in common, what is different, how they change. How big a sample size is needed? Evolution is a biological fundamental that explains life. I can understand if people want to hold open some possibility that God is in there somewhere. But imagining it might not be real somehow is just willful ignorance (not saying that is what you are doing).

[Rocker Ute]

I didn't realize there were multiple definitions of evolution. I'm giving that word its most common, ordinary meaning. Is there some other meaning I should be taking into account? Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by "true" evolution. We can watch it take place in fruit flies, it's readily observable in domesticated animals and plants. We can look at genomes and see what they have in common, what is different, how they change. How big a sample size is needed? Evolution is a biological fundamental that explains life. I can understand if people want to hold open some possibility that God is in there somewhere. But imagining it might not be real somehow is just willful ignorance (not saying that is what you are doing).

We are getting into semantics here, but the term evolution as it is dually used both here in this thread and commonly is both fact and theory (and is demonstrated in your own quote).

For example, suppose a building burned down. The fact would be that the building burned down. Now the question is, "Why did it burn down?" The answer to that question will be the theory. Some hypothesis may be presented like, "Maybe it burned down because of electrical problems, or a gas leak, or maybe someone ignited the fire." Next they would go and investigate and find that there was no evidence of accelerants, and that the fire seemed to originate from a breaker panel, and so they would report that theory is that the fire was started by faulty electrical wiring.

Don't think of theory as an unproven assumption, but rather a plausible or acceptable principle or set of principles, or an analysis of those set of facts. Einstein's theory of relativity is so generally accepted as a rule that a while ago when they thought that they had measured something faster than the speed of light it blew the scientific communities mind because they were using that theory as essentially a ruler for measurement of just about everything.

A fact is something that has happened, or happens. We observe evolution in the world everywhere, from fruit flies to Darwin's finches. Those changes are facts. Using those set of facts to create a plausible or accepted principle or set of facts to explain the origins of life is the theory. A theory doesn't mean it is on shaky ground it just means based on the facts we can observe this is what we see or believe has happened.

So when we talk about the theory of evolution, we are talking about the fact of evolution being the explanation of the origin of life.

[UtahDan]

We are getting into semantics here, but the term evolution as it is dually used both here in this thread and commonly is both fact and theory (and is demonstrated in your own quote).

For example, suppose a building burned down. The fact would be that the building burned down. Now the question is, "Why did it burn down?" The answer to that question will be the theory. Some hypothesis may be presented like, "Maybe it burned down because of electrical problems, or a gas leak, or maybe someone ignited the fire." Next they would go and investigate and find that there was no evidence of accelerants, and that the fire seemed to originate from a breaker panel, and so they would report that theory is that the fire was started by faulty electrical wiring.

Don't think of theory as an unproven assumption, but rather a plausible or acceptable principle or set of principles, or an analysis of those set of facts. Einstein's theory of relativity is so generally accepted as a rule that a while ago when they thought that they had measured something faster than the speed of light it blew the scientific communities mind because they were using that theory as essentially a ruler for measurement of just about everything.

A fact is something that has happened, or happens. We observe evolution in the world everywhere, from fruit flies to Darwin's finches. Those changes are facts. Using those set of facts to create a plausible or accepted principle or set of facts to explain the origins of life is the theory. A theory doesn't mean it is on shaky ground it just means based on the facts we can observe this is what we see or believe has happened.

So when we talk about the theory of evolution, we are talking about the fact of evolution being the explanation of the origin of life.

You have used a perfect analogy. We know what caused the destruction of the house. It was fire. The point I am making is that a lot of people (I run into TONS of them especially in these online communities) who will take the uncertainly about how the fire began, or spread, etc. and say, you people who believe in "fire theory" are so arrogant in assuming that it explains so much, it's just a theory and one that is not internally always consistent and doesn't explain a lot of things at that. They are illogically reassured that maybe, somehow, it wasn't actually fire because how precisely the fire started or worked remains unknown. Since no one saw the house burn, yes, it is possible that the whole house was destroyed by fire except for the vanity in the master bedroom which was vaporized by a laser beam from space. We can't exclude the possibility or the possibility that the whole blaze was started by said laser beam and not by one of the common and known ways fires get started. Anything is possible.

I understand you point about how theory is used, but not all theories are created equal. Theoretically, if I drive my car into a wall there will be a crash that does damage to the car and probably the wall. Also, theoretically, there is a Loch Ness monster. Some things become so irrefutable that we take them for granted. We couldn't function in life if this were not true.

[LA Ute]

I think the point of this kerfluffle with Thomas Nagel is that he departed from orthodoxy. We all have our orthodoxies. Many people who love science have theirs, and many of them get very upset when that notion is raised. Dogma is not exclusive to religion.

[Rocker Ute]

You have used a perfect analogy. We know what caused the destruction of the house. It was fire. The point I am making is that a lot of people (I run into TONS of them especially in these online communities) who will take the uncertainly about how the fire began, or spread, etc. and say, you people who believe in "fire theory" are so arrogant in assuming that it explains so much, it's just a theory and one that is not internally always consistent and don't explain a lot of things at that. They are illogically reassured that maybe, somehow, it wasn't actually fire because how precisely the fire started or worked remains unknown. Since no one saw the house burn, yes, it is possible that the whole house was destroyed by fire except for the vanity in the master bedroom which was vaporized by a laser beam from space. We can't exclude the possibility or the possibility that the whole blaze was started by said laser beam and not by one of the common and known ways fires get started. Anything is possible.

I understand you point about how theory is used, but not all theories are created equal. Theoretically, if I drive my car into a wall there will be a crash that does damage to the car and probably the wall. Also, theoretically, there is a Loch Ness monster. Some things become so irrefutable that we take them for granted. We couldn't function in life if this were not true.

I agree and see people make that same incorrect assumption. In fact I think most Mormons can see the facts supporting the theory of evolution and see it as science and don't have a problem with it being taught, nor do they buy that the world is only 6000 years old, but try to fit the science into their beliefs. We (they) typically point at terms like 'organized' vs 'created' and 'creative periods' vs 'days' to try to tie these beliefs as consistencies with the science. Some might explanation as confirmation bias, but then my answer is, "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that their aren't actually people out there trying to kill me!" ;)

I personally have never been taught that science is necessarily in opposition to religion, nor have I been taught to look at science derisively.

But I agree with you, to those people who look at evolution as being a theory meaning it stands on shaky ground, you can point out that they are mixing theory with hypothesis, and many things they depend on and view as ultimately reliable are in fact based on theory.

In the same, I like to hold open the fact that we still 'see through a glass, darkly' and that we may learn new things still and that is what is beautiful.

[UtahDan]

I think the point of this kerfluffle with Thomas Nagel is that he departed from orthodoxy. We all have our orthodoxies. Many people who love science have theirs, and many of them get very upset when that notion is raised. Dogma is not exclusive to religion.

But the whole point of science is to upset the orthodoxies, to erase the dogma. You get ahead by showing the people before you were wrong, but adding to what is known. Of course there are orthodoxies within scientific communities, but over the long arc what is incorrect gets corrected. What your statement implies is that religion's dogmas, which are held on no or very thin evidence (that is what faith is for) and not subject to revision, are no weaker or irrational that scientific dogmas which arise BECAUSE of evidence and are always subject to change. The two things could not be any more different.

The implication is we all believe what we want to believe whether there is evidence for it or not. Science and religion are the same! If that is not the implication or the suggestion, then what is the point of the comparison?

The wallbash emoticon seems not to be functioning, BTW. I want so much to use it!!! ;)

[USS Utah]

The LDS Church does not have a position on evolution. I think it was Gordon B. Hinckley who said "God told us that he created the world, he didn't tell us how."

[UtahDan]

I agree and see people make that same incorrect assumption. In fact I think most Mormons can see the facts supporting the theory of evolution and see it as science and don't have a problem with it being taught, nor do they buy that the world is only 6000 years old, but try to fit the science into their beliefs. We (they) typically point at terms like 'organized' vs 'created' and 'creative periods' vs 'days' to try to tie these beliefs as consistencies with the science. Some might explanation as confirmation bias, but then my answer is, "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that their aren't actually people out there trying to kill me!" ;)

I personally have never been taught that science is necessarily in opposition to religion, nor have I been taught to look at science derisively.

But I agree with you, to those people who look at evolution as being a theory meaning it stands on shaky ground, you can point out that they are mixing theory with hypothesis, and many things they depend on and view as ultimately reliable are in fact based on theory.

In the same, I like to hold open the fact that we still 'see through a glass, darkly' and that we may learn new things still and that is what is beautiful.

Someone cleverly said the other day that if you took all the professors at BYU, cut out just the part of their brain that deals with their discipline, and then sowed all those pieces together, the resulting brain would not believe anything about Mormonism. The engineers don't believe you can build a submarine with windows that rolls upsidedown and take enough food along, the linguists don't believe differences in language came from the tower of babel, geologists know the earth is older than 6000 years (still in the D&C), etc. The point being that people fit science in selectively and piecemeal. They like it when they believe it aids their point of view but will accept a magical or supernatural world view when they must. But science and logic aren't going to talk a faithful person out of something that was not arrived at by using them.

I have zero problem with people professing faith about something. But when they try to bring in science and argue that it supports them on that or that science is really not so different from faith, I have to disagree with those approaches.

[Applejack]

I didn't say anything about God or evolution not being real. I'm just saying that not everyone understands the word the same way you do. There might be 100 colloquial uses of the word. Your definition - the definition - is 100% spot on.

I do still believe that evolution is not really a good experimental science. Like you said, we have plenty of evidence that evolution occurs. What we often can't do is replicate the process in a lab to discover whether it occurred in the ways we believe.

I'm still unsure what you mean by evolution not being a "good experimental science." Evolution, as we have discussed ad nauseum, is a theory - theories require some sort of testing. That testing cannot "prove" the theory, but rather can only hope to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., the theory is wrong). So, the only reason that gravity, evolution, et al are called theories is because successful experimentation can tell us only one thing: the theory has not been disproved. No experiment will ever tell us that the theory is correct - thus, theories, like SeattleUte, can never be elevated to a higher glory.

Furthermore, there have been thousands of evolutionary experiments that have rejected the null hypothesis. Because of the multiple generations needed to observe mutations, scientists usually rely on quickly reproducing organisms (most often bacteria) to run their experiments. But they have often used larger lifeforms, such as foxes, minxes, and mice. Lastly, unlike Newtonian physics, evolution has never been disproved via experimentation. In that sense, it is a highly experimental science.

If what you mean to say is that the fact that humans evolved from apes is not experimental science, you are obviously correct. But that is a historical claim, and historical claims can almost never be experimentally reproduced. Science doesn't require direct reproduction; it simply looks to disprove theories, oftentimes indirectly. Scientisits did not disprove Newtonian physics by showing that an apple didn't fall on Newton's head - they did so by showing that at extremely high masses or extremely fast speeds, objects did not obey Newton's laws. If you doubt that man evolved from ape simply because we can't reproduce an ape turning into a man in the lab, you should really doubt almost every historical claim (the one-time existence of dinosaurs, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, the holocaust).

[tooblue]

But the whole point of science is to upset the orthodoxies, to erase the dogma. You get ahead by showing the people before you were wrong, but adding to what is known. Of course there are orthodoxies within scientific communities, but over the long arc what is incorrect gets corrected. What your statement implies is that religion's dogmas, which are held on no or very thin evidence (that is what faith is for) and not subject to revision, are no weaker or irrational that scientific dogmas which arise BECAUSE of evidence and are always subject to change. The two things could not be any more different.

The implication is we all believe what we want to believe whether there is evidence for it or not. Science and religion are the same! If that is not the implication or the suggestion, then what is the point of the comparison?

The wallbash emoticon seems not to be functioning, BTW. I want so much to use it!!! ;)

What a wonderfully ironic treat. UtahDan arguing in favor of orthodoxies and dogma's—whether or not that is your intent, that is what you are doing. And i love the contradiction in your first three sentences ... lol ... how do you erase dogma? With dogma? That's the point of Nagel's argument, isn't it? To be clear. Nagel is an Athiest. He believes in evolution period. He is arguing against buying into the orthodoxies and inherent dogma ;-)

[Jeff Lebowski]

We have a couple of old dudes in our HPG that like to denounce scientists as atheists and tools of Satan for promoting evolution. One claims that there are lots of faithful scientists out there that try publish papers showing evidence of divine creation, but they are being persecuted and held back by the evil atheist scientists.

I would love to see a draft manuscript of one of these papers. "And then, a miracle happened..."

[LA Ute]

The implication is we all believe what we want to believe whether there is evidence for it or not. Science and religion are the same!

<Insert straw man reference here.> Are you seeing unthinking religious dummies under every bed?


The wallbash emoticon seems not to be functioning, BTW. I want so much to use it!!! ;)

I have a similar complaint: The eyeroll emoticon on the new vBulletin is not as good as the old one. ;)

[USS Utah]

I heard an interesting argument a week or so ago. People who make arguments for the existence of God do so because they have some doubt on the question. If you have no doubt about the existence of God, then you don't need to make arguments for it. Perhaps people who rail against science or against atheists or both do so because of their own doubts. Those who have no doubts likely do not feel threatened by evolution, science, atheism, etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

<Insert straw man reference here.> Are you seeing unthinking religious dummies under every bed?



I have a similar complaint: The eyeroll emoticon on the new vBulletin is not as good as the old one. ;)

There is no reason to suffer with these stupid new emoticons. There are despised throughout the vbulletin world. Using the admincp you switch back to the old ones in just a minute or two.

[LA Ute]

There is no reason to suffer with these stupid new emoticons. There are despised throughout the vbulletin world. Using the admincp you switch back to the old ones in just a minute or two.

I'm still taking vBulletin Administrator 101. Give me a chance to catch up.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm still taking vBulletin Administrator 101. Give me a chance to catch up.

This is a part of the admincp that only JiC has access to (unless you are sharing the account credentials). Just PM me if you want to do it and I can explain the process.

[Rocker Ute]

Someone cleverly said the other day that if you took all the professors at BYU, cut out just the part of their brain that deals with their discipline, and then sowed all those pieces together, the resulting brain would not believe anything about Mormonism. The engineers don't believe you can build a submarine with windows that rolls upsidedown and take enough food along, the linguists don't believe differences in language came from the tower of babel, geologists know the earth is older than 6000 years (still in the D&C), etc. The point being that people fit science in selectively and piecemeal. They like it when they believe it aids their point of view but will accept a magical or supernatural world view when they must. But science and logic aren't going to talk a faithful person out of something that was not arrived at by using them.

I have zero problem with people professing faith about something. But when they try to bring in science and argue that it supports them on that or that science is really not so different from faith, I have to disagree with those approaches.

Science is by its very nature piecemeal. 'Wondering Awe' often drives the questions that begat the hypotheses that begat the theories that begat Japeth.

Sorry, was mixing my religion with science. ;)

[NorthwestUteFan]

Running macro scale experiments on larger animals is of course impossible. But we can show certain patterns to be statistically impossible without a somewhat stepwise evolutionary development.

One very interesting and recent molecular scale discovery deserves mention. The DNA of every mammal contains a gene which codes for production of Vitamin C, and don't require a dietary source.

Great apes and guinea pigs however are unable to produce Vitamin C and will essentially die of scurvy without a dietary source. Looking more closely we see that the single gene which codes for production is present, but is inactivated in these species. In all of the great apes this gene is switched off in precisely the same location, out of very many possible spots on the DNA molecule. In guinea pigs however this gene is inactivated at an entirely different spot.

Genetic evolutionary theory holds that all great apes are descended from a specific predecessor species, and one that was previously differentiated from the predecessor of the lesser ales (which endogenously produce their own Vitamin C).

It is statistically improbable that the great apes each individually developed the identical solution to inactivate this gene. The more likely scenario would involve switching off this gene at seperate receptor sites out of the great number of available options, as did the guinea pigs.

Great apes are all individual species, meaning they typically cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring. One species did not rise from the other, but they all co-evolved from a common ancestor who very likely ate a diet rich in Vitamin C.

This is absolutely fascinating to me.

[woot]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. The same way that gravity is a fact. That both occur and are fundamental processes/forces on our world is not in dispute. They are readily observable and easily reproduced. The precise mechanism of each is not fully understood and the evolutionary history of any living thing is necessarily limited by what we can dig up (though genetics is casting huge light on this). But the uncertainly about how exactly evolution functioned through history or works now should not be conflated with uncertainty about whether evolution occurs and is the mechanism by which the great variety of life on this planet arose. People like to suggest that because the details are still up for grabs that the whole think might one day be replaced by something else and that is flatly wrong.

This is the answer. Nagel isn't being branded as a heretic. He's being mocked for rejecting basic scientific knowledge without any valid reason.

I'd like to point out the tendency among anti-science folks to use religious terminology in order to try to paint scientists with the same goop with which the religious folks themselves know they are covered. Nagel isn't being branded a heretic for betraying sacred doctrines. He's not being cast out for apostatizing against the orthodoxy. He's not being shunned for questioning dogma. He has written some really stupid things, and folks who understand the evidence far better than he does are pointing this out. That his nonsense is immediately being pummeled is just a demonstration of why science works. Nagel doesn't have any evidence to back up his assertions, so his assertions are discarded.

[tooblue]

This is the answer. Nagel isn't being branded as a heretic. He's being mocked for rejecting basic scientific knowledge without any valid reason.

I'd like to point out the tendency among anti-science folks to use religious terminology in order to try to paint scientists with the same goop with which the religious folks themselves know they are covered. Nagel isn't being branded a heretic for betraying sacred doctrines. He's not being cast out for apostatizing against the orthodoxy. He's not being shunned for questioning dogma. He has written some really stupid things, and folks who understand the evidence far better than he does are pointing this out. That his nonsense is immediately being pummeled is just a demonstration of why science works. Nagel doesn't have any evidence to back up his assertions, so his assertions are discarded.


“In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism, heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives.”

When he puts it like that, it seems odd such dry philosophy has elicited such a storm of denunciation. As in religion, though, the heretics provide the fuel, but it is the faithful who light the fire.

And in comes one of the "faithful" to denounce the heretic :). Nagel is an atheist, believer in evolution and a philosopher. Nothing in his book offers solace or comfort to any so called creationists or their ideas. In fact his book isn't even addressing creationists. He could care less about creationists or creationist theory. His only intent is to address orthodoxy and dogma within "the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism." That is what philosophers do. Why is his "speculation" so threatening, especially considering the fact he calls it such? Also, that his "nonsense" as you call it is being pummelled may be a sign of insecurity as much as anything else.

Science is an orthodoxy rife with dogma. Why should it not be challenged? Appeals to evidence are a ruse and only further cement the notion that fear and not reason is driving the criticism of his philosophies ... his ideas ... his speculation.

[woot]

And in comes one of the "faithful" to denounce the heretic :). Nagel is an atheist, believer in evolution and a philosopher. Nothing in his book offers solace or comfort to any so called creationists or their ideas. In fact his book isn't even addressing creationists. He could care less about creationists or creationist theory. His only intent is to address orthodoxy and dogma within "the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism." That is what philosophers do. Why is his "speculation" so threatening, especially considering the fact he calls it such? Also, that his "nonsense" as you call it is being pummelled may be a sign of insecurity as much as anything else.

Science is an orthodoxy rife with dogma. Why should it not be challenged? Appeals to evidence are a ruse and only further cement the notion that fear and not reason is driving the criticism of his philosophies ... his ideas ... his speculation.

I wasn't saying Nagel is religious, only that he's no different from them in this case, in that his ideas are not backed by evidence. In fact he seems to be unaware of how much evidence there is against his views. There's nothing wrong with speculation -- he's correct in that scientists do it all the time. And when they do, they are often reminded of evidence contradicting their speculations if indeed there is any. There are currently many areas of science in which speculation can take place quite freely, since the hypotheses lie in areas that are either currently or forever untestable. Such speculations are treated as such, i.e. accepted as one of many possibilities about which we can't be sure. Nagel is simply being reminded of why his speculations are unlikely to be true, in the same manner as often happens in such cases.

A very good example is the recent writings of E.O Wilson. He's one of the father figures of modern biology, and yet he's been lambasted lately due to his recent writings promoting group selection. It has nothing to do with orthodoxy or dogma. It has to do with scientists doing what they do -- appealing to evidence to answer questions when such evidence is available.

That doesn't mean that scientists don't often go overboard in their criticism; they often do. There are scientific factions about all sorts of scientific questions. It's a shame sometimes, but it's true, and I think it is often productive when two well-populated sides argue vehemently about something, as those who aren't on a team can evaluate the evidence and argumentation as onlookers. The point is that this has nothing to do with Nagel's status as an outsider. His arguments have been found wanting by the scientific community -- the brutal, aggressive scientific community.

[LA Ute]

:snack:The reversal of roles in this thread is hilarious.

[tooblue]

I wasn't saying Nagel is religious, only that he's no different from them in this case, in that his ideas are not backed by evidence. In fact he seems to be unaware of how much evidence there is against his views. There's nothing wrong with speculation -- he's correct in that scientists do it all the time. And when they do, they are often reminded of evidence contradicting their speculations if indeed there is any. There are currently many areas of science in which speculation can take place quite freely, since the hypotheses lie in areas that are either currently or forever untestable. Such speculations are treated as such, i.e. accepted as one of many possibilities about which we can't be sure. Nagel is simply being reminded of why his speculations are unlikely to be true, in the same manner as often happens in such cases.

A very good example is the recent writings of E.O Wilson. He's one of the father figures of modern biology, and yet he's been lambasted lately due to his recent writings promoting group selection. It has nothing to do with orthodoxy or dogma. It has to do with scientists doing what they do -- appealing to evidence to answer questions when such evidence is available.

That doesn't mean that scientists don't often go overboard in their criticism; they often do. There are scientific factions about all sorts of scientific questions. It's a shame sometimes, but it's true, and I think it is often productive when two well-populated sides argue vehemently about something, as those who aren't on a team can evaluate the evidence and argumentation as onlookers. The point is that this has nothing to do with Nagel's status as an outsider. His arguments have been found wanting by the scientific community -- the brutal, aggressive scientific community.

Are you equating a Biologist with a philospher? To me, the two are not equatable. Getting back to Nagel, he is mostly speculating about consciousness. What specific evidence can you site that explains consciousness. When exactly was the puzzle of human consciousness solved? I'd be very curious to find out ... especially, if as you say, it can be used to remind Nagel of why his speculation are unlikely to be true.

I'm going to go eat Easter dinner. I don't want a fight. I think it's awesome that you are chiming in on this subject. Your perspective is very interesting.

[woot]

Are you equating a Biologist with a philospher? To me, the two are not equatable. Getting back to Nagel, he is mostly speculating about consciousness. What specific evidence can you site that explains consciousness. When exactly was the puzzle of human consciousness solved? I'd be very curious to find out ... especially, if as you say, it can be used to remind Nagel of why his speculation are unlikely to be true.

I'm going to go eat Easter dinner. I don't want a fight. I think it's awesome that you are chiming in on this subject. Your perspective is very interesting.

Sigh. You've set up a straw man here. One can recognize the evidence that exists, and the complete lack of evidence for an alternative position, without claiming that a question is completely solved.

[tooblue]

Sigh. You've set up a straw man here. One can recognize the evidence that exists, and the complete lack of evidence for an alternative position, without claiming that a question is completely solved.

I am not ignoring or dissmissing your thoughts. You equated a biologist with a philosopher, not me. That is the fallacy here. Furthermore, you insist Nagels ideas are being criticised based upon arguments supported by evidence. I have asked for a demonstration of that evidence. You responded with a sigh. Which tells me you have no evidence to support the notion that Nagels ideas on consciousnous are being rightfully critcised.

[UtahDan]

I am not ignoring or dissmissing your thoughts. You equated a biologist with a philosopher, not me. That is the fallacy here. Furthermore, you insist Nagels ideas are being criticised based upon arguments supported by evidence. I have asked for a demonstration of that evidence. You responded with a sigh. Which tells me you have no evidence to support the notion that Nagels ideas on consciousnous are being rightfully critcised.

If a propose that a flying teapot imbued human kind with consciousness and woot says he can't explain precisely how consciousness arose through evolution have I won the argument?

[UtahDan]

Or what if I can demonstrate that all the stuff in my house was brought there by the movers except for my favorite lamp which I don't remember bringing myself and didn't see the movers bring it either. If my wife asserts that Mr. Spock beamed it site to site from the Enterprise and I have to truthfully say I don't know how it got there but assume that someone must have carried it in, can I point out that there is no evidence of star ships and transporter technology if I myself can't explain how it got there?

[tooblue]

Or what if I can demonstrate that all the stuff in my house was brought there by the movers except for my favorite lamp which I don't remember bringing myself and didn't see the movers bring it either. If my wife asserts that Mr. Spock beamed it site to site from the Enterprise and I have to truthfully say I don't know how it got there but assume that someone must have carried it in, can I point out that there is no evidence of star ships and transporter technology if I myself can't explain how it got there?

Those are interesting red herrings. But, that's not what Nagel is argiuing. He doesn't believe in God or teapots and he says nothing about starships. He doesn't assume someone or some thing carried anything in. Those are your constructs and they are not relevant.

[jrj84105]

Running macro scale experiments on larger animals is of course impossible. But we can show certain patterns to be statistically impossible without a somewhat stepwise evolutionary development.


One very interesting and recent molecular scale discovery deserves mention. The DNA of every mammal contains a gene which codes for production of Vitamin C, and don't require a dietary source.


Great apes and guinea pigs however are unable to produce Vitamin C and will essentially die of scurvy without a dietary source. Looking more closely we see that the single gene which codes for production is present, but is inactivated in these species. In all of the great apes this gene is switched off in precisely the same location, out of very many possible spots on the DNA molecule. In guinea pigs however this gene is inactivated at an entirely different spot.


Genetic evolutionary theory holds that all great apes are descended from a specific predecessor species, and one that was previously differentiated from the predecessor of the lesser ales (which endogenously produce their own Vitamin C).


It is statistically improbable that the great apes each individually developed the identical solution to inactivate this gene. The more likely scenario would involve switching off this gene at seperate receptor sites out of the great number of available options, as did the guinea pigs.


Great apes are all individual species, meaning they typically cannot interbreed to create fertile offspring. One species did not rise from the other, but they all co-evolved from a common ancestor who very likely ate a diet rich in Vitamin C.


This is absolutely fascinating to me.


I haven't read Nagels's stuff, but the gist that I get from reviews is that he is rejecting complete reductionist materialism (aka Sheldon Cooper's argument that physics is the only pure science as all other disciplines are ultimately reducible to physics operations). There's certainly a case to be made that Darwinian evolutionary theory may lack the eloquence to bridge the gap from our nuts and bolts understanding of biology to a completely material explanation of all consciousness. That said, calling into question our nuts and bolts understanding of biology, as derived from evolutionary theory, is plain silly.


The example given above (which is a little off, technically) shows why "evolution" is not simply a theory that scientists pull out and contemplate when they're feeling philosophical. The principles of evolutionary theory are used on a daily basis by people working in the biosciences. If you want to evaluate a novel oncogene or tumor suppressor pathway, one of the first steps is going to be to look at the evolutionary tree, assess the degree of conservation over evolutionary time, find the most suitable (often simplest) animal model, try to understand potential counfounding evolutionary differences and work from there. The utility of evolutionary theory, in a practical sense, isn't that it necessarily answers the details of how we came to be and certainly doesn't tell us the meaning of our being, but gives us the greatest set of tools we have ever had for understanding how life functions, malfunctions, and changes- and we're really just beginning to learn how to use those tools. To say that evolutionary theory is somewhat limited in it's ability to explain what it feels like to be a bat for instance (a Nagel example) doesn't really tell us anymore than that natural selection doesn't tell me how the internal combustion works.


PS: There is, speaking of evolution and technology, a very interesting debate about the "techome" including a debate on whether or not certain technologies, now capable of self regeneration and increasing autonomy, are approaching what we have traditionally considered being "alive". Think about that the next time your PC asks you if you'd like to update (to software that was randomly generated and "evolved" through supervised selection rather than written by a programmer).

if you're still contemplating whether or not humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor, you have missed the train and are going to miss out on the greatest scientific and philosophical debates of the next half century.

[UtahDan]

Those are interesting red herrings. But, that's not what Nagel is argiuing. He doesn't believe in God or teapots and he says nothing about starships. He doesn't assume someone or some thing carried anything in. Those are your constructs and they are not relevant.

You argued that. Actually so is he.

[UtahDan]

You argued that. Actually so is he.

To be clear the argument is without evidentiary support. That is the commonality, not the supernatural.

[tooblue]

You argued that. Actually so is he.

You may have me confused with someone else. I have only argued that Nagel is arguing against orthodoxy and dogma. Again, Nagel is an athiest and a believer in evolution. He is not rejecting evolution, only the inherant dogma of darwinism in a modern context. There is nothing supernatural in his ideas. He is a philosopher. You are trying to insert the supernatural or assign it to Nagel and his ideas.

[tooblue]

To be clear the argument is without evidentiary support. That is the commonality, not the supernatural.

And it appears so is the criticism. If evidentiary support is the metric by which Nagel's philosophy is to be judged then I would expect the critics to offer evidence in support of their critique of Nagel's speculation.