A new approach to evolution

[Sriram]

It is well known that.....if you want a fresh look at things don't talk to experts.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is well known that.....if you want a fresh look at things don't talk to experts.

No - you talk to a range of complementary experts.

Sure if you talk to someone who isn't an expert you'll get a 'fresh look' but one that is likely not to be correct and not to be supported by evidence.

[Outrider]

It is well known that.....if you want a fresh look at things don't talk to experts.

It's well know that if you're talking shit you try to smear it as widely as possible so that everyone looks as shitty at the end. Anyone who launches their case with 'don't listen to experts' - Goving, as it's known - is basically admitting that they don't have a valid argument before they start. If you had a case, if you had a point, if you had even the vestige of an argument you'd not be ignoring the experts you'd be talking to them, and they'd by and large follow any evidence you had and then you'd have the experts on your side.

What makes them experts isn't that we like what they say, it's that they can justify what they say. Listen to experts, it's what they're there for.

O.

[Sriram]

Experts can be respected in their limited area of expertise. I agree. But not when we need to look at something differently or when other factors need to be considered.

Problem is that experts generally have a very microscopic perspective and cannot see the woods for the trees. I am not saying that just about anyone can comment on their area of expertise. No! However, other scientists and philosophers who have a bigger picture view can comment very constructively on the subject.

Any area of study does not exist in isolation in the world. It is a part of a bigger reality and it is necessary to see how it fits into the totality.

[ProfessorDavey]

Experts can be respected in their limited area of expertise. I agree.

That seems self evident.

But not when we need to look at something differently or when other factors need to be considered.

Sure, so bring in other experts on those 'other factors'. 

Problem is that experts generally have a very microscopic perspective and cannot see the woods for the trees.

No more nor less than others with other or no expertise. But at least those people have relevant expertise to the problem at hand. You seem to be implying that we should somehow give greater weight to complete non-experts. We shouldn't.

I am not saying that just about anyone can comment on their area of expertise.

That seems to be exactly what you are saying as time after time you link to people making claims about things way outside their expertise or people with no expertise at all.

No! However, other scientists and philosophers who have a bigger picture view can comment very constructively on the subject.[/quote]Which is why you bring in others with complementary expertise - but those people will only credibly be able to talk about things within their area of expertise.

Any area of study does not exist in isolation in the world. It is a part of a bigger reality and it is necessary to see how it fits into the totality.

Hence the need for complementary expertise to build a broader evidence base. Your approach seems to be to dismiss the actual evidence and base conclusions on what you want to be true rather than where the evidence takes you.

[Sriram]

You don't get it. Two microscopes don't make a telescope. It is about someone with a broader perspective not expertise.

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't get it. Two microscopes don't make a telescope. It is about someone with a broader perspective not expertise.

I'm sorry Sriram - it is you who doesn't get it.

If you want to design either a microscope or a telescope you want to bring in complementary expertise - for example someone with optical physics expertise, another who understands the designs of lenses, another who is a general design engineer etc etc. You may also bring in end user experts, e.g. a biologist who can input into what the microscope needs to assess in terms of magnification/resolution etc. Same for the telescope, but perhaps and end user astronomer.

What you don't want to do is reject all those experts and decide that the best way to design a microscope is to employ a philosopher and a poet who decide that the cardboard inner for kitchen roll is going to work 'cos microscopes and telescopes are kind of long thin tubes'!

[Outrider]

Experts can be respected in their limited area of expertise. I agree.

Why the presumption that their fields are limited? If you're looking for a broader remit there's likely someone who is an expert at that level.

But not when we need to look at something differently or when other factors need to be considered.

First you have to justify why you think there's a 'broader perspective', then you have to ask if you're talking to the right expert - look back to your attempts to use the output of a cardiologist to justify calling evolutionary biology's established findings into question.

Problem is that experts generally have a very microscopic perspective and cannot see the woods for the trees.

No, the problem is that you keep trying to justify presuming there's something more on no more basis than your personal incredulity.

I am not saying that just about anyone can comment on their area of expertise. No! However, other scientists and philosophers who have a bigger picture view can comment very constructively on the subject.

You're mixing philososphy and science here, and they are massively different fields of expertise. People can always comment constructively, can always ask interesting questions, but it takes something spectacular to overturn generations of well-established science and whatever that might be you don't have it.

Any area of study does not exist in isolation in the world.

And in my experience, experts in a field are pretty good at understanding how their field of expertise fits in - it's almost like expertise involves having a context.

It is a part of a bigger reality and it is necessary to see how it fits into the totality.

But what it doesn't have to do is to fit into your interpretation of the totality. If you want to overturn expertise and established science you need new science, not questions (valid or otherwise), woo and people talking outside of their own areas of expertise being used as attempted justification for throwing out the established scientific consensus on a question of science.

O.

[Sriram]

I'm sorry Sriram - it is you who doesn't get it.

If you want to design either a microscope or a telescope you want to bring in complementary expertise - for example someone with optical physics expertise, another who understands the designs of lenses, another who is a general design engineer etc etc. You may also bring in end user experts, e.g. a biologist who can input into what the microscope needs to assess in terms of magnification/resolution etc. Same for the telescope, but perhaps and end user astronomer.

What you don't want to do is reject all those experts and decide that the best way to design a microscope is to employ a philosopher and a poet who decide that the cardboard inner for kitchen roll is going to work 'cos microscopes and telescopes are kind of long thin tubes'!

I am referring to a broader perspective...a zoom-out perspective instead of a zoom-in perspective. These perspectives require different mind sets. Its not just about putting different experts (zoom-in people) together.  That is what I meant by saying that putting several microscopes together doesn't make a telescope.

[Sriram]

Why the presumption that their fields are limited? If you're looking for a broader remit there's likely someone who is an expert at that level.

First you have to justify why you think there's a 'broader perspective', then you have to ask if you're talking to the right expert - look back to your attempts to use the output of a cardiologist to justify calling evolutionary biology's established findings into question.

No, the problem is that you keep trying to justify presuming there's something more on no more basis than your personal incredulity.

You're mixing philososphy and science here, and they are massively different fields of expertise. People can always comment constructively, can always ask interesting questions, but it takes something spectacular to overturn generations of well-established science and whatever that might be you don't have it.

And in my experience, experts in a field are pretty good at understanding how their field of expertise fits in - it's almost like expertise involves having a context.

But what it doesn't have to do is to fit into your interpretation of the totality. If you want to overturn expertise and established science you need new science, not questions (valid or otherwise), woo and people talking outside of their own areas of expertise being used as attempted justification for throwing out the established scientific consensus on a question of science.

O.

It is not that someone  just decides to over turn an expert opinion. It is because the expert opinion does not fit into the overall perspective that it is questioned.

A philosophical view is not an expert view. It is a overall view ...a look at the totality.

Also, some experts get bogged down in dogma and established theories without being able to think out of the box.

[Outrider]

It is not that someone  just decides to over turn an expert opinion. It is because the expert opinion does not fit into the overall perspective that it is questioned.

Science is not trumped by 'a perspective'. You have a 'perspective' they have a hundred years and more of painstakingly gathered and evaluated experimental and observational evidence. These two are not equal.

A philosophical view is not an expert view. It is a overall view ...a look at the totality.

Those experts know where their expertise fits into the broader picture. You are presuming that because you have an opinion in which there INCREDIBLY WELL EVIDENCED AND RESEARCHED understanding of one of the fundamental building blocks doesn't fit into your ABSOLUTELY ARBITRARY OPINION on the broad picture that therefore their expertise is questionable and your hunch is valid.

Also, some experts get bogged down in dogma and established theories without being able to think out of the box.

They aren't being asked to think outside the box. You're looking into their box, saying that you had a feeling the inside was blue and they must be wrong about it being green and just dismissed thousands of highly qualified people and thousands of collective years of work. The arrogance is only rivalled by the sheer fucking ridiculousness of it.

O.

[Sriram]

Whatever may be the expertise of a group of scientists...it is still only a subset and a small segment of the total reality of life.  That will not change.

Unless we understand the role and function of the segment in the totality, we understand very little. It is a microscopic understanding in isolation to other realities.

To have a broader zoom-out vision, we need a different mindset which the individual experts in the individual fields of study will not have.  This limitation of specialists is well known.

We need more people like Denis Noble who have a background in evolutionary biology and also a overall perspective.

[Aruntraveller]

his limitation of specialists is well known.

So your happy with a plumber removing your prostate?

[ProfessorDavey]

We need more people like Denis Noble who have a background in evolutionary biology and also a overall perspective.

For crying out loud Sriram - Noble isn't an evolutionary biologist. I know this as I've met him a few times and invited to a bioengineering meeting to be key note on a session on physiological modelling (his area of expertise). And he knows it to - hence the title of his talk, which reflects on him entering the 'Lions' Den' of evolutionary biology as a non specialist.

[ProfessorDavey]

To have a broader zoom-out vision, we need a different mindset which the individual experts in the individual fields of study will not have.

Says the person on this MB who continually poses questions and see things through an achingly anthropocentric prism. Sriram - the least 'zoomed out' mindset is surely someone who cannot see things beyond the perspective of a single species that has existed for a blink of an eye on cosmic terms on a single planet. But that, Sriram, is exactly what you do time and time again.

[Outrider]

Whatever may be the expertise of a group of scientists...it is still only a subset and a small segment of the total reality of life.

We don't know if it's a small segment or almost the entirety - what we don't have is a verified description of that total reality of life. So you have the option of going with our best current explanation or some unjustified claim.

That will not change.

Apparently not, but I'll keep trying anyway.

Unless we understand the role and function of the segment in the totality, we understand very little.

Arguably; we know at least some of what does work, and at least some of what doesn't work.

It is a microscopic understanding in isolation to other realities.

What 'other realities'?

To have a broader zoom-out vision, we need a different mindset which the individual experts in the individual fields of study will not have.

Or we can collectively build the bigger picture by having informed experts working at various levels, so that you might have, say, specialists in DNA inheritance and specialists in mitonchondrial inheritance informing evolutionary biologists who are also informed by archaeologists and palaeontologists who are all informed by chemists and physicists and geographers... rather than just throwing validated information out of the window and going 'but woo!'.

This limitation of specialists is well known.

Which is why we also have generalists.

We need more people like Denis Noble who have a background in evolutionary biology and also a overall perspective.

Noble does not have a background in evolutionary biology, he's a cardiologist.

O.

[Sriram]

A collection of experts will only add more data to the pool. More pieces of the puzzle. They will not bring a new perspective or a view of the totality.

It is not about more data. It is about a different programming. A different way of looking at and analyzing the same data.  A different way of putting the pieces together. 

We need a zoom-out philosopher. 

[Outrider]

A collection of experts will only add more data to the pool.

That's not 'only', that's an achievement, it's a continual incremental increase in our understanding.

More pieces of the puzzle. They will not bring a new perspective or a view of the totality.

If you think revealing more pieces and where they fit will not bring about a more total view of reality I invite you to attempt a jigsaw puzzle. You keep saying about this 'new perspective' but you've manifestly failed to justify the need for one.

It is not about more data. It is about a different programming.

Why? Because you don't understand the current picture and there assume, arrogantly, that the current picture must be wrong, it couldn't possibly be a limitation of your capabilities?

A different way of looking at and analyzing the same data.  A different way of putting the pieces together.

Again, that's not how a jigsaw works, you can't just arbitrarily decide to put edge pieces in the middle and say 'look at my genius'.

We need a zoom-out philosopher.

Why? We are dealing with observable, testable phenomena - we need scientists. Oh, look at that, we have shit-load of those already, let's stick with what's been shown to work rather than inventing a market for woo because you don't like the justified answers you're getting.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

We need a zoom-out philosopher.

No we don't - we need a community of complementary experts each of which are experts in their own field but have the broader expertise to be able to understand and interpret scientific data and evidence.

It is unlikely that a philosopher would have this expertise in interpreting data and therefore would not be able to base the 'broader' view on the evidence. Leaving such matters to philosopher leads us down the line of dogmatic adherence to a philosophical position that is not supported by the evidence and we have many, many examples from the view that the sun orbited around the earth, that the earth was created in a short timeframe, that diseases were due to sin etc etc. None of these philosophical positions are evidence based, but those philosophical adherents clung to them dogmatically to the extent that those who challenge those views with evidence we persecuted.

[Nearly Sane]

No we don't - we need a community of complementary experts each of which are experts in their own field but have the broader expertise to be able to understand and interpret scientific data and evidence.

It is unlikely that a philosopher would have this expertise in interpreting data and therefore would not be able to base the 'broader' view on the evidence. Leaving such matters to philosopher leads us down the line of dogmatic adherence to a philosophical position that is not supported by the evidence and we have many, many examples from the view that the sun orbited around the earth, that the earth was created in a short timeframe, that diseases were due to sin etc etc. None of these philosophical positions are evidence based, but those philosophical adherents clung to them dogmatically to the extent that those who challenge those views with evidence we persecuted.

That reads like 'dogmatic adherence to a philosophical position'

[ProfessorDavey]

That reads like 'dogmatic adherence to a philosophical position'

I suspect only to the guy who can start a fight in an empty room.

In what way - a position based on actual reproducible and verifiable evidence seems to me to be neither dogmatic (as it will change as and when new evidence arises), nor a philosophical position in the sense that we commonly consider philosophy today (i.e. as something distinct from science with its requirement for evidence).

But even if you consider philosophy in its more general sense, ie. encompassing science then basing something on evidence is, almost by definition, not dogmatic unless you consider that evidence can never change, which science doesn't.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect only to the guy who can start a fight in an empty room.

In what way - a position based on actual reproducible and verifiable evidence seems to me to be neither dogmatic (as it will change as and when new evidence arises), nor a philosophical position in the sense that we commonly consider philosophy today (i.e. as something distinct from science with its requirement for evidence).

But even if you consider philosophy in its more general sense, ie. encompassing science then basing something on evidence is, almost by definition, not dogmatic unless you consider that evidence can never change, which science doesn't.

Because it read like you are saying to be a philosopher you have to adhere to a dogmatic philosophical position
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we don't - we need a community of complementary experts each of which are experts in their own field but have the broader expertise to be able to understand and interpret scientific data and evidence.

It is unlikely that a philosopher would have this expertise in interpreting data and therefore would not be able to base the 'broader' view on the evidence. Leaving such matters to philosopher leads us down the line of dogmatic adherence to a philosophical position that is not supported by the evidence and we have many, many examples from the view that the sun orbited around the earth, that the earth was created in a short timeframe, that diseases were due to sin etc etc. None of these philosophical positions are evidence based, but those philosophical adherents clung to them dogmatically to the extent that those who challenge those views with evidence we persecuted.

Do you have evidence for this piece that seems a monumental example of scientism. Portraying philosophers as akin to geocentric is particularly egregious.

[Sriram]

No we don't - we need a community of complementary experts each of which are experts in their own field but have the broader expertise to be able to understand and interpret scientific data and evidence.

It is unlikely that a philosopher would have this expertise in interpreting data and therefore would not be able to base the 'broader' view on the evidence. Leaving such matters to philosopher leads us down the line of dogmatic adherence to a philosophical position that is not supported by the evidence and we have many, many examples from the view that the sun orbited around the earth, that the earth was created in a short timeframe, that diseases were due to sin etc etc. None of these philosophical positions are evidence based, but those philosophical adherents clung to them dogmatically to the extent that those who challenge those views with evidence we persecuted.

There is plenty of evidence for all sorts of things if only we can notice them.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/

[Outrider]

There is plenty of evidence for all sorts of things if only we can notice them.

Excellent. Given that you've offered no evidence that science would follow through to the conclusion you're starting from, all you need now is some validated methodology to examine your evidence that leads to the conclusion you want to proffer, and we'll have a basis for accepting your claims. Until then, we're still at the point where you're peddling woo.

O.