Shots Across The Bow

Popper and Evolution

Popper and Evolution
I should be sleeping now, but y’all got me started last night , and now that I’m home with my library at hand, I want to expand on a few of my comments, and provide a few more examples. If you’re not a science junkie, you might want to try another blog today. This may get a little dry. Don’t worry about me missing sleep though; I’ll sleep on the way to work.

I often do.

First off, I am not a creationist, nor do I consider intelligent design an inevitable conclusion. I do, however, have some serious reservations about evolution theory as currently espoused today, as it is woefully inadequate to explain the tremendous variety of life on Earth, or to describe how it all came about.

First, let’s examine the Popper Doctrine a little more closely. According to the doctrine, the tenets of science must be falsifiable. Therefore it follows that they must be testable. If you can’t devise a test to falsify a theory, it is not true science.

In the first place, one of the first lessons in Logic101 is that failure to prove a negative does not constitute proof of the positive, so right away, the Popper Doctrine is in a logical quagmire. Even if the testing of a theory fails to falsify it, the theory has not been proven. So in this view, nothing can ever be proven scientifically, only fail to be disproved, hardly the concrete basis we need for a mechanistic view of the Universe.

The second problem with the Popper Doctrine is that it relies on a completely mechanistic view of the universe, which is a failing of the scientific method itself. In essence, according to science, if a thing cannot be measured, it does not exist.

As an example, can we quantify love? Can we predict in advance the emotional reaction two people will have for each other, based on their characteristics? Obviously not, otherwise blind dates would be a wonderful thing, and matchmakers would all be wealthy. The actions of our emotions at the individual level defy prediction, although some progress has been made in predicting the emotional responses and reactions at the group level. But the fact remains that although we know much of the biochemistry of physical and emotional attraction, we lack the ability to quantify it.

Quite obviously though, love exists, otherwise it wouldn’t hurt so much. It exists as an emotion over and above the temporary biochemical reactions within the brain. But, in a purely mechanistic world, this thing called love would be amenable to analysis, calculation, and prediction. The fact that it isn’t strikes a severe blow against a mechanistic worldview.

Some argue that emotions and other behaviors are outside the rules, or are exceptions to the rules. This argument is a cop out of the highest order. A good theory must explain all of the data, not just the data that fits the curve. Once outlying data has been screened for experimental error, design flaws, or other sources of problems, each data point must be accounted for by the theory; otherwise the theory is incomplete, or incorrect. In a mechanistic worldview, close just isn’t good enough.

So, we see that the Popper Doctrine has a couple of inherent flaws, but let’s put those aside for a moment and assume that it works just fine. If that is the case, then why isn’t it applied more uniformly? I can think of several theories currently en vogue which completely fail to meet the Popper Doctrine.

A few examples:

• One of the popular theories about the origin of the universe involves the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and fluctuations in zero. According to this theory, the universe was at a zero state, but due to the requirements of the Uncertainty Principle, zero isn’t always zero, but is sometimes more than nothing, and sometimes less. (That’s right, less than nothing. Pretty cool stuff, huh?) Statistical analysis of this quantum level fluctuation revealed that given the right conditions, the variation of this zero state could reach a point where it would spontaneously ‘blow up’, creating the universe. Mathematically, this is OK, because the mathematicians balance the mass created with the energy of gravity, to maintain a zero sum. Obviously, this theory is not testable, and therefore is not falsifiable, but I’ve yet to hear anybody raise the Popper Doctrine.

• Another popular theory involves superstrings as the building blocks of all particles. The interactions of these one dimensional sub atomic particles are said to be the foundation of all mass and energy in the universe. A complicated mathematics has been developed to describe how this would work, but a problem quickly arose. The math required more than four dimensions in order for the theory to work. The theories proponents declared that the ‘extra dimensions’ were tightly curved upon themselves so as not to impinge upon our four dimensional space-time. Again, not testable, and not falsifiable, but rarely challenged on the basis of Popper.

• As a final example, one of the problems with the theory of the origin of the universe mentioned above is that statistical variations require time in which to occur, and before the universe existed, there was no time. Along comes the concept of “imaginary time” and this problem was neatly whisked away. Imaginary time ran on a different axis than our four dimensional space-time, and is therefore imperceptible to us. When enough time passed on that scale that the statistical royal flush occurred, and the universe was created, imaginary time was transformed into our current four dimensional space-time. Stephen Hawking also uses imaginary time as a foundation for his theory of a limited universe with no boundaries theory. Of course, once again, Imaginary time is a theory which cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be falsified, but I doubt anybody has accused Hawking of being a shaman instead of a scientist.

So, we are now left with a question: Why is Popper’s Doctrine applied so selectively? The answer lies in human nature, as always. The scientific establishment has a vested interest in maintaining the structure it has built laboriously over the decades. Paradigm shifts are resisted bitterly, even as evidence in favor of them mounts. New discoveries that fit within the established framework are welcomed eagerly, although still subject to stringent peer review, but theories that change that framework are fought tooth and nail. Just read a history of Tesla or Lister, or Paul Dirac for that matter. Science has a dogma every bit as rigid as that of the church, and although that dogma was developed with more rigor, and provides a much better description of the world around us, to step outside that dogma, even with considerable proof, is to invite scorn and derision. While it is fair for an institution to protect the precepts that served it well, it does not make sense to dismiss an idea out of hand, without even reviewing the basis for it, just because it disagrees with what you already know. The history of science is filled with discoveries that changed what we thought we knew.

By the way, I don’t reject any of the above theories out of hand. They represent solid attempts to explain all of the available facts. The fact that they are not testable in no way makes them poor science, in my opinion.

I realize that this argument is philosophical, rather than scientific in nature, but then again, so is Popper’s Doctrine. I’ve tried to use examples from other branches of science to show why his definition of science overly limited. I still like the way he blows a harp, though.

OK. I’ve done most of what I set out to do, and my typing is rapidly deteriorating, so I’ll leave you with one final question.

A cornerstone of evolutionary biology is that changes must occur gradually, by small increments. While the duration of these changes can be relatively short, accomplishing a major change in one step is the equivalent of invoking God, and is therefore a no-no. So how can we explain the development of bilateral symmetry? Certainly this represents a major change from the unicellular organisms. Can anybody devise a probable set of steps from amorphous clumps of cells to bilaterally or even radially symmetrical layout, providing a fitness edge each step of the way? Remember, even according to Richard Dawkins, major changes must occur gradually, and must provide a fitness advantage at each stage of the change.

By the way, I used Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Gribbin’s In Search of Shrodinger’s Cat and Schrodinger’s Kittens, and Peat’s Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything in preparing this post. If I misrepresented the science from any of those sources, I’m sure somebody will point it out.

All right, while you are doing your homework (the 2 of you that read all the way through this (I’m probably being wildly optimistic with that)) I’m going to get some sleep.

Posted by Rich at June 6, 2002 1:08 PM