To give a simple example, it has been the claim of some mathematicians that the probability of reaching a certain DNA sequence in a single selection event is less than 10-150; therefore they conclude the sequence is unreachable by evolution and can only be explained by ID.
You will no doubt recognize that this is built on the assumption that only that one sequence could provide the genetic basis of the phenotypic function. Biologists know this assumption to be incorrect, because the genetic path to function is known to be broad and flexible. Another way of explaining the mathematician’s misunderstanding is to refer to the Texas Sharpshooter’s Fallacy.
But a mathematician who has a light understanding of biology might not understand the stochastic path to functionality in biology and therefore resist the biologists’ perspective quite ferociously. I have seen it happen all too frequently.
Hmm, well, precisely as you describe there may be a missapplication on the mathematicians’ side. But that is not a problem with the math, but with the parameters. And in fact, this is still an example of the principle in play. The mathematician is speakin on an area outside their domain, which is the model parameters. The biologist provides the parameters, and the mathematician provides the range of possible outcomes of the model given the parameters.
If the parameters are correct, and model outcome does not match empirical data, then the model is wrong.
Thanks. I don’t have time to read in the usual way, as my work requires lots of messages at night, but I do listen on Audible. The only Dembski I can find on Audible is “Design Revolution.” Is that OK? I’ll give it a stab, if so. Otherwise, maybe I can listen to some of his talks.
Yes, “The Design Revolution” is a great overview of ID theory. Covers all the key points and the main criticisms. And as always I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Right. But methinks you’re selling the mathematical abilities of many biologists short. @glipsnort, for example, has an excellent understanding of the mathematical modeling and parameters for genomics, wouldn’t you say?
It’s not like physicists, chemist, astronomers, and biologists reach the point where they’re ready to do some math and then exclaim, “Oh darn! It’s time to do mathematical modeling, but only formally trained mathematicians are allowed to do that!”
It’s not like mastery of the Burali-Forti paradox or the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is going to help a biologist do good work.
What I am responding to is the common criticism that unless a mathematician knows biology, they cannot say anything about evolution. However, what I am saying is that insofar as evolution is based on certain mathematical models, a mathematician is entirely within their right to comment on the capabilities and limitations of said mathematical models qua mathematical models, irrespective of the mathematician’s knowledge of biology.
Thus, if a biologist says these are my parameters P, this is my mathematical model M, and this is my empirical data D, the mathematician can pronounce judgment as to whether P and M suffice to explain D, again regardless of whether the mathematician has any knowledge of biology. For example, if a biologist says the model is X + 1 = Y, and X = 1 and Y = 3, the mathematician can say the biologist’s model is incorrect, without knowing anything about how X and Y are derived.
Wow. I honestly don’t want to go looking for a malevolent creator! :). So, I’m back to–if we found evil intent, then would we not rather still look for the cause of the intelligence?
That’s an interesting conversation about GK Chesterton’s identification that Catholicism could be right because the critics of orthodoxy argue from both sides of the coin. I had had that conversation with my brother in law (we are both Protestants, but he was discussing it from a Christian orthodoxy perspective; I also read it in “Orthodoxy.” The more I ponder it, though, the more I think that it’s a misperception of Chesterton’s, don’t you think? If anyone holds an unmoving view on something, of course you are going to find people from a varied population criticizing you from different perspectives. It could be any perspective, though, that experiences it–Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism–all can have standards that are more or less to the center of a bell curve (in fact, pretty much all widely held beliefs have to be there, in order to have enough adhere to a large portion of their tenets, don’t they?).
Thanks. Maybe we should start a thread on G K Chesterton. He deserves a lot of discussion.
I’ll second what Randy wrote. In my experience mathematics is applied to biology and other fields to make sense of the data. This happens only with close collaboration with someone who really knows the biology/other. The mathematics itself confirms or denies the extrapolations of the scientist. Mathematics is not, in itself, discovering biology.
Now it’s Randy’s turn for a nowwaitaminute!
Science doesn’t repeat the past (that would be silly), but it should be able to repeat the evidence. It’s the experiment and evidence leading to a conclusion that is repeatable. We don’t repeat the land bridge, we repeat the process of finding evidence for the land bridge (or vitamin C gene). We might repeat the original observations, confirming they were correct, or maybe find some new independent line of evidence.
Hence the current perspective on Junk DNA, at least for the parts that are not conserved.
Not to pick on you, but your personal experience is not relevant. Look at the history of science and its record for correcting older beliefs, or casting off ideas that don’t work (produce new or useful results).
