The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen

[suri]

Psychotropic,In science a theory cannot be compelling. It is either proven or not proven.

Hi thevortex,

an earlier post (ramanujam)

"By definition, a theory cannot be indisputably proven. But it does not mean the theory of evolution is as weak as a hypothesis i may propagate as Ramanujam."

ramanujam would say proven theory = fact.

theory not proven completely = lacunae present = theory

 

[psychotropic]

vortex,

whether something is proven or unproven has no bearing on whether it is compelling. Compelling merely refers to something that appeals to an individual's sense of reason and logic.

I have not read Darwin (but I will), but what I have read about the theory of evolution does seem very convincing. One of the reasons this theory cannot be 'proven' like other theories is that it cannot be observed in action. So it will never have an 'absolute proof' unless our species evolves such that individuals can live for millenia.

But like I said, while it is by no means a complete or perfect observation for what we see in nature, it ties in so well with so much observable phenomena that i have little reason to doubt it. In law there are several standards of proof, one is called "preponderance of probabilies", which is a sort of 'tipping of scales', a 'more likely than not' scenario. Secondly there is 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is a much higher standard, but crucially does not mean 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', if it is proved to the extent that no reasonable doubts remain then the accused is guilty. In the case of Darwin's theory for evolution, in my view it has been proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Yes it's not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' but this is good enough for me.

The 'supernatural force' camp however has no explanations or justifications for their stand, and somehow they are not asked to produce any. I am curious as to know why you do not ask the same pointed questions to this camp, since there are actually far more pointed questions that can be asked. I know you have clarified that you are unaffiliated, but in that case, you must definitely ask the religionists the pointed questions about their proof, since you are putting darwin's theories to this kind of rigorous examination.

There are no observable phenomena with which the supernatural phenomenon idea ties in, except anecdotally (the wondrous beauty of the aurora borealis and such other similar 'intelligent design' stories), and frankly that's a really really poor type of evidence. In a court of law that would be thrown out at the threshold , forget even preponderance of probabilities.

Psychotropic,

In science a theory cannot be compelling. It is either proven or not proven. While personally I might be happy if the theory satisfies, say 7 out of 10 tenets, scientific temper in and of itself would certainly frown at this. On that scale, the evolution theory as proposed by Darwin does not completely and absolutely explain what we see today in nature.

About Gobble's reference, the word that he may have wanted to use was 'the missing link'. (Feel free to correct me, Gobble, if this was not what you meant).

Psycho - in his 'Origin of the Species' there are a few references to these 'missing links' in his proposed theory of evolution. What really struck me as being totally unscientific was his seeming insinuation that the black man and the aboriginals may be the 'missing link' between less evolved forms and human beings themselves.

I guess an excuse can be made out for him as a man of his times. Which is what I get to read in many places on the internet. Still...

The problem with disputing the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is simply that once you say a word against this, you automatically seem to put yourself up as a supporter of Creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever you might call that school of thought. In my mind that is a pretty shallow way of looking at things.

This is like calling up a stranger off the road and asking him whether he is good or bad. This sort of thinking very conveniently forgets that there are shades of grey everywhere and in everything.

At present what we have in our hand is a mystery. To dismiss people offhand just because they do not wish to believe in Darwin's theory even when it has not been proven to the satisfaction even of the scientific community, strikes me as being a bit peremptory. Of course what they may wish to believe in alternatively is their business entirely.

This is just my thought process. For the record, I do not out of hand reject Darwin's theory. It is interesting. It is a work in progress. And those that say that all that we see is the work of some higher power also interest me. From what I have read, seen or observed, I am not able to make myself fall in with either group. I am just a bystander

 

[moktan]

even at the risk of being over simplistic this is my take on the evolution vs creation debate...
if one were to go by the very basic premise of evolution ..(and i know after Darwin there has been any number of 'evolutionary' theories from 'punctuated equilibrium' to 'macro evolution' etc )..life arose out of some purposeless accident millions of years ago...and through mutation and natural selection..(the former providing the raw material for the latter)..resulted in the diversity of species that exists today......there was no first cause, no intelligent purpose...nothing...taken in that light, evolution posits that there is no ultimate meaning in or rather to life, save perhaps to do a measure of good as long as one is alive and maybe pass on some genetic traits to one's progeny...

belief in creation one the other hand invests life with a 'meaning' since..the creator, or the first cause could have some ultimate purpose for which life was created..
the fact that man has spiritual needs which he seeks to satisfy in a number of ways ....his ability and willingness to engage in altruistic acts..his aesthetic sense (which includes the faculty to create and enjoy music, the primary reason that we 'purpose' to be in this forum)..his language..his sense of justice and other higher attributes (such as morality..say the loathing of almost all cultures towards rape, murder, incest-when animals have no such issues)..somehow seem to me at least, pointing towards a 'higher' purpose of existence than mere survival....
the problem with this view however is that we have religions (and thousands of them at the last count) telling us how exactly to achieve that 'higher' purpose...
and contrary to what people of 'all religions are the same' camp assert...some of the so called 'truths' and 'prescriptions' of these religions are many times not just different but even contradictory...

people like Dawkins see a problem here...so long as folks were willing to engage in such 'spiritual idiosyncrasies' by themselves it did not matter much...
but when some are willing to go to extreme lengths in the belief that what their religion (or their interpretation of it) holds forth is the ultimate truth and are even ready to kill and hurt for because of that conviction..somebody has to say enough is enough....
this is of course not something with easy answers...but the truth must still be out there and till such a time that we actually find it we must keep looking...
at least that is what i feel...
p.s.
there is an interesting book called Phantoms of the Brain by an indian brain scientist, Ramachandran..where he gives an entirely different take on the matter..he says...intense spiritual feelings can be attributed to what he terms, 'temporal lobe seizures', an activity attributed to the limbic system...so he asks quite mischievously...what if i remove it..would i have performed a Godectomy?..of course the chapter (GOD AND THE LIMBIC SYSTEM) raises much profounder questions than what i have tried to farcically recollect here...

 

[srramanujam]

Dear Venkat,

Assuming i read your statement exhorting "non believers" to live with nature correctly,

1. Lack of faith in God can co-exist perfectly with wonderment about nature, a sense of obligation to society and morals, and a deep personal humility and responsibility. I see no reason why only non believers should try this. I think all of mankind should feel humble at the insignificant force that they represent, irrespective of whether they believe in God or not.

Dear Srikarkav,

1. The azhwars wrote wonderful poetry. A belief in God is not necessary to appreciate them. The mere visualisation of the affection, devotion and the awe in which they perceived God, makes ones senses tingle. It is literary genius at its magical best. A belief in God may make it transcendental, but thats not necessary for me. Kannadhasan is said to have turned believer after he read Thiruppavai.


Dear Vortex,

I have no original arguments about evolution theory and i am only sharing where my conviction comes from. I will be perfectly happy to shed it if there is a good counterexample, not that my stand has an impact on how the theory is perceived in the scientific community.

I could suggest two further readings.

A brief history of nearly everything, Bill Bryson. It provides illustrations on many of the debates in this thread.

Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

The book that i referred to for all available proof on evolution - The greatest show on earth - Richard Dawkins.

I can also share a 12 hour lecture in MP3 format on evolution, that lays out the different theories and talks a bit more elaborately on evolution through natural selection (of darwin).


I will be happy to read material that methodically contradicts Darwin's theory.

 

[srramanujam]

the fact that man has spiritual needs which he seeks to satisfy in a number of ways ....his ability and willingness to engage in altruistic acts..his aesthetic sense (which includes the faculty to create and enjoy music, the primary reason that we 'purpose' to be in this forum)..his language..his sense of justice and other higher attributes..somehow seem to me at least, pointing towards a 'higher' purpose of existence than mere survival....

Sorry to take this up again - The Selfish Gene has an interesting hypothesis on this behaviour. I am not articulate enough to explain it, but is an interesting read. Just to clarify, Selfish Gene is a hypothesis, not yet a theory.

 

[suri]

Dear Venkat,Assuming i read your statement exhorting "non believers" to live with nature correctly,
1. Lack of faith in God can co-exist perfectly with wonderment about nature, a sense of obligation to society and morals, and a deep personal humility and responsibility.

humility is relative - so, in one's wonderment about nature, you stand with bowed head in front of what/whom?

 

[srramanujam]

Hi thevortex,

ramanujam would say proven theory = fact.

theory not proven completely = lacunae present = theory

My correction in a flippant mood.

proven theory = fact or law
theory not proven completely but fits all available observations and experiments - theory
lacunae present = God

 

[moktan]

Sorry to take this up again - The Selfish Gene has an interesting hypothesis on this behaviour. I am not articulate enough to explain it, but is an interesting read. Just to clarify, Selfish Gene is a hypothesis, not yet a theory.

It is quite interesting to note that in his preface to the book..Dawkins writes: This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction....

of course one of the intellectually profound ideas that Dawkins raises in this book is that of 'memes' ....which as the wiki explains are ' postulated unit(s) or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, and is transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. "

 

[srramanujam]

humility is relative - so, in one's wonderment about nature, you stand with bowed head in front of what/whom?

humble in relation to my mother who has put up more in life than i ever will, to my english teacher who taught how i write, content with earning a 10th of what i may end up earning, in relation to the biochemistry that makes me live, in relation to U Shrinvas who is weaving magical music even as i write, in relation to the phenomenon called monsson, especially in Mumbai and certainly in Kannur, humble in front of almost everything.

As a corollary, may i ask, is humility in front of God the only form of humility that is meaningful.

 

[suri]

humble in relation to my mother who has put up more in life than i ever will, to my english teacher who taught how i write, content with earning a 10th of what i may end up earning, in relation to the biochemistry that makes me live, in relation to u shrinvas who is weaving magical music even as i write, in relation to the phenomenon called monsson, especially in mumbai and certainly in kannur, humble in front of almost everything.

As a corollary, may i ask, is humility in front of god the only form of humility that is meaningful.

brilliant!

 

[moktan]

humble in relation to my mother who has put up more in life than i ever will, to my english teacher who taught how i write, content with earning a 10th of what i may end up earning, in relation to the biochemistry that makes me live, in relation to U Shrinvas who is weaving magical music even as i write, in relation to the phenomenon called monsson, especially in Mumbai and certainly in Kannur, humble in front of almost everything.

As a corollary, may i ask, is humility in front of God the only form of humility that is meaningful.

you seem to be almost 'proud' of your humility ...

 

[srramanujam]

of course one of the intellectually profound ideas that Dawkins raises in this book is that of 'memes' ....which as the wiki explains are ' postulated unit(s) or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, and is transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. "

Sorry, you got him wrong. Meme is not his idea, merely his terminology for a perfectly common phenomenon. All of know that some ideas propagate wonderfully without any underlying intent to spread it. He merely coined a term for it.

He goes on to examine what makes these things spread and stick in the mind of people, a perfectly permissible question, isnt it.

I will sign off for the evening, i want to keep my job.

 

[moktan]

Sorry, you got him wrong. Meme is not his idea, merely his terminology for a perfectly common phenomenon. All of know that some ideas propagate wonderfully without any underlying intent to spread it. He merely coined a term for it.

He goes on to examine what makes these things spread and stick in the mind of people, a perfectly permissible question, isnt it.

I will sign off for the evening, i want to keep my job.

yes...but it was Dawkins who wanted to give such 'perfectly common phenomenon'... an 'evolutionary' spin .....

 

[thevortex]

Hi thevortex,

an earlier post (ramanujam)

"By definition, a theory cannot be indisputably proven. But it does not mean the theory of evolution is as weak as a hypothesis i may propagate as Ramanujam."

ramanujam would say proven theory = fact.

theory not proven completely = lacunae present = theory

Ah yes, pardon my slip up. But I think you got the gist of what I was getting at. You would only think that with the ruckus that the scientific camp are making that the evolution theory is all done and dusted in terms of proof. Insofar as a scientific theory requires proof to gain credence among the populace, that is.

vortex,

whether something is proven or unproven has no bearing on whether it is compelling. Compelling merely refers to something that appeals to an individual's sense of reason and logic.

I have not read Darwin (but I will), but what I have read about the theory of evolution does seem very convincing. One of the reasons this theory cannot be 'proven' like other theories is that it cannot be observed in action. So it will never have an 'absolute proof' unless our species evolves such that individuals can live for millenia.

But like I said, while it is by no means a complete or perfect observation for what we see in nature, it ties in so well with so much observable phenomena that i have little reason to doubt it. In law there are several standards of proof, one is called "preponderance of probabilies", which is a sort of 'tipping of scales', a 'more likely than not' scenario. Secondly there is 'beyond reasonable doubt', which is a much higher standard, but crucially does not mean 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', if it is proved to the extent that no reasonable doubts remain then the accused is guilty. In the case of Darwin's theory for evolution, in my view it has been proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Yes it's not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' but this is good enough for me.

The 'supernatural force' camp however has no explanations or justifications for their stand, and somehow they are not asked to produce any. I am curious as to know why you do not ask the same pointed questions to this camp, since there are actually far more pointed questions that can be asked. I know you have clarified that you are unaffiliated, but in that case, you must definitely ask the religionists the pointed questions about their proof, since you are putting darwin's theories to this kind of rigorous examination.

There are no observable phenomena with which the supernatural phenomenon idea ties in, except anecdotally (the wondrous beauty of the aurora borealis and such other similar 'intelligent design' stories), and frankly that's a really really poor type of evidence. In a court of law that would be thrown out at the threshold , forget even preponderance of probabilities.

Psychotropic I must point out that I specifically mentioned that there is nothing compelling about a theory when it comes to science. Whether it is compelling for individuals to believe or not is not under question at all.

Science being the hankerer after proof and demonstrable effects and manifestations of whatever it is that is being studied cannot simply be satisfied by whether a theory is compelling to the human mind or not.

About my pointed questions at only this camp - again I should point out that I have loads of questions for the other camp as well. The only reason I am not throwing them out here is because they are very clear in their mind. They have no qualms in stating that their evolutionary theory is simply rooted in belief or faith. They do not profess to have theories that explain our existence to, say about 60%.

Now, whether that form of thinking is better or not, is probably a greater question requiring separate attention on its own.

But if you look at the scientific camp, they claim themselves to be fact driven and completely objective. Going by that they can only claim something as truth (no I am not going to talk about theories being proven again) if there is real data and proof to back them up. In the case of the evolution theory, I am afraid such irrefutable proof is not there.

There are reasons yes. But I doubt that such puny reasons as men not being able to live for millenia would be something that pioneering scientists would accept as adequate excuse for not being able to explain this wholly.

Regarding preponderance of probabilities, as you said regarding the other camp, any case which uses this preponderance as evidence to expound its theory is likely to be thrown out of a court too.

Not meaning to nitpick at all, psychotropic. To me, both sides have a lot of gaps in their explanations. I will understand people who embrace the scientific camp based on empirical evidence as I will people who chose to instead believe in faith, a higher power and an overall meaning. I just have a problem falling in with either group Plus I dont believe either group is better than the other.

 

[venkatcr]

Assuming i read your statement exhorting "non believers" to live with nature correctly,

1. Lack of faith in God can co-exist perfectly with wonderment about nature, a sense of obligation to society and morals, and a deep personal humility and responsibility. I see no reason why only non believers should try this. I think all of mankind should feel humble at the insignificant force that they represent, irrespective of whether they believe in God or not.

I made a slip 'of the tongue' there. What I meant there was believers/non-believers in order vs chaos.

But there is a sense of relationship between belief in God and belief/non-belief in order. It is easy for a believer (in God) to accept all that happens on earth and the universe as following a series of rules set by an entity. Even a catastrophe is easily explained as a punishment for our 'sins' past and present.

When you start questioning the existence of God, your start questioning everything that happens, particularly in nature. Why should a lion eat other animals? Why should animals eats plants? What becomes difficult for them to understand is that all these 'rules' (If I may call it that) have evolved over time to maintain an intricate balance for the existence of various life forms. Monkeys eat a particular tree bark to keep diabetes away. The weak die and only the strong survive. There is no jealousy, and no 'why not me'.

An animal will see it's close one passing away quite simply move on. In one of his movies Akira Kurusova shows a village where they actually celebrate the passing away of a old resident. With our sixth sense and intelligence, we have only made life more difficult. To a large extent I can sympathise with our sages who throw away all materialistic needs and find happiness with simple living.

I am digressing.

Cheers

 

[thevortex]

Dear Vortex,

I have no original arguments about evolution theory and i am only sharing where my conviction comes from. I will be perfectly happy to shed it if there is a good counterexample, not that my stand has an impact on how the theory is perceived in the scientific community.

I could suggest two further readings.

A brief history of nearly everything, Bill Bryson. It provides illustrations on many of the debates in this thread.

Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

The book that i referred to for all available proof on evolution - The greatest show on earth - Richard Dawkins.

I can also share a 12 hour lecture in MP3 format on evolution, that lays out the different theories and talks a bit more elaborately on evolution through natural selection (of darwin).


I will be happy to read material that methodically contradicts Darwin's theory.

Nice lot of reading material you have given me, Ramanujam. Thank you. That should keep me busy for some time.

Regarding material methodically contradicting Darwin's theory even fossil evidence thoroughly and physically contradicts his theory. But let me try and give a few links on this subject.

 

[thevortex]

There seems to be a lot of interest related to the theory of evolution. In line with Ramanujam's request for some material countering Darwin's theory, here are a few links. I have tried to steer clear of material provided by the opposite camp as far as possible. But in this day and age of the WWW, who knows who is connected to whom.

Dissent From Darwin Blog

DarwinsPredictions.com

An Interview with Niles Eldredge | American Museum of Natural History

 

[gobble]

An animal will see it's close one passing away quite simply move on.

Not true at all Venkatji. Let me give a few stories -

A few years back a calf elephant was killed by a train around UP. It is one of those places where the railway track is built through a forest reserve on the muscle and clout of local MPs and corporators to satisfy thier vote bank. The sad story is that the heartbroken mother and the enraged herd decided to "challenge" the next locomotive/train that came by with tragic results. They were no match for the 100 tonned train running at 60kmph.

A few months back on the front cover of Sanctuary magazine was the photo of a mother elephant grieving over the rotting body of her dead calf, refusing to leave it behind. She had been at it for a week when the pic was taken.

And in the latest episode in which I am personally involved 10 days back, I rescued a 6 to 8 week old kitten that was emotionally traumatized and completely devastated by the death his mother. I saw his mother a few minutes after she had gone under the wheels of a tempo the night before (I heard her dying scream). The next afternoon this kitten created a traffic jam on the road. I was passing by and saw people run after it trying to grab it. At first I thought its spine was broken and it was clawing in the air gasping for its last moments. Then it stood up, ran two rounds, dashed its head against the ground and repeated the act of clawing in the air. Cars went screeching, and people didn't know what to do next. The 3rd time it did this I realized in a flash what was happening. The poor thing was imitating the dying moments of its mother at exactly the same spot where she had gone!! I quickly put my scooter aside and went for it. It had climbed into the undercarriage of a Scorpio. I crawled under the car and grabbed it from near the engine. It bit my hand which bled a bit but I did not let go.

I let it spend 2 days under my bed then it escaped through my 4th floor bathroom ventilator early morning only to come back late night with its tail missing. The poor thing is living on my terrace under a sheltered ledge now and comes in after dark to feed as it refuses to let me touch it or come near it. I am giving it a pinch of anti-depressants since a few days with the cat food.

I dont believe it was suicide he was attempting because of the fact that he bit me a few days later when I tried to touch him and he keeps running away - this shows that his survival instincts are very strong. I think he just wanted to go with his mother without realizing what pain it involved and hence imitating the last moment of hers he saw. He must have been crossing the road with her and escaped the wheels himself while he crouched and saw his mother... :sad:

What I saw that afternoon tore my heart to shreds in an instant. That moment will always be etched in my memory. To see a 6 to 8 weeks old child behave the way he did and do the things he did to express his longing for his mother. Sigh!

Personally with my long experience with cats and observing other creatures, I am completely convinced they have more than we are willing to attribute to them. So I can only appeal to you folks to forget about scientific knowledge and proof of things and see with your heart. If scientific progress involves making a 1000 lab animals sick and dying a slow painful death every week, with electrodes planted in the skull and forced to ingest poisons to test the reactions, We should stand up and say no - we don't want it.

Like the Jains, I do not believe in the supremacy of humans in the order of the world. I can only hope the world will follow their example one day.

Regards

 

[suri]

Like the Jains, I do not believe in the supremacy of humans in the order of the world. I can only hope the world will follow their example one day

and i must say, the world will be better off without humans - the thinking ones (the entire human race)

and after all this thinking what is the outcome?- this :-

1. god has made humans in his/her image and has stocked the larder for his/her creation (read - all the other animals and creatures are for humans to kill and eat)

2. god made humans so that they would obey him/her and worship him/her

3. god made humans imperfect so they would sin (in god's eyes) and then would atone by giving money to his/her middlemen (read the priests, the pujaris, the godmen, the charlatans!). otherwise, hell would be their destination {perfect blackmail}

Yes, these rules are made by clever people to keep the less-clever people in check/to subjugate/to fleece, but still .....................

once this thinking species exits the scheme of things, the world will be a better place to live in - for all the gentle animals and creatures who live and die without illegal thoughts and ideas.

 

[psychotropic]

This is what baffles me. An apparently rational person, accepts that religion's explanations are based on 'faith' which is a nice word for 'fiction' and would still place the theory of evolution on the same footing as that fiction. It completely baffles me, but I guess that's how faith works.

And yes, lots of great books recommended around here. I had recommended Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain also in the context of blind testing, because it illustrates beautifully how the brain uses a whole host of stimuli to perform simple acts like 'seeing', which is why it is not inconceivable that not auditory factors can play a big role in what we 'hear.'

Bill Brysons's 'a short history of nearly everything' is a fantastic book, and a must read for everyone.

Moktan, I completely understand where you're coming from, in the same way I understand Vekat's perspective, and I don't see any reason why we can't all get along peacefully and enjoy the music

Science being the hankerer after proof and demonstrable effects and manifestations of whatever it is that is being studied cannot simply be satisfied by whether a theory is compelling to the human mind or not.

About my pointed questions at only this camp - again I should point out that I have loads of questions for the other camp as well. The only reason I am not throwing them out here is because they are very clear in their mind. They have no qualms in stating that their evolutionary theory is simply rooted in belief or faith. They do not profess to have theories that explain our existence to, say about 60%.

Now, whether that form of thinking is better or not, is probably a greater question requiring separate attention on its own.

But if you look at the scientific camp, they claim themselves to be fact driven and completely objective. Going by that they can only claim something as truth (no I am not going to talk about theories being proven again) if there is real data and proof to back them up. In the case of the evolution theory, I am afraid such irrefutable proof is not there.

There are reasons yes. But I doubt that such puny reasons as men not being able to live for millenia would be something that pioneering scientists would accept as adequate excuse for not being able to explain this wholly.

Regarding preponderance of probabilities, as you said regarding the other camp, any case which uses this preponderance as evidence to expound its theory is likely to be thrown out of a court too.

Not meaning to nitpick at all, psychotropic. To me, both sides have a lot of gaps in their explanations. I will understand people who embrace the scientific camp based on empirical evidence as I will people who chose to instead believe in faith, a higher power and an overall meaning. I just have a problem falling in with either group Plus I dont believe either group is better than the other.