Dawkins has written a new book about evolution.
The reviewer at the NYT Sunday Book Review reviews the book, makes it clear that he considers evolutionary theory to be correct, then wastes 800 words (well over half the review) on a completely misguided argument about how evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Again, he doesn’t disagree with the idea that evolution explains the diversity on earth. He just wants to quibble about how we call it a theory for a reason, how science must always be open to changes, etc. Of course he’s right, but he’s also wrong.
He’s wrong because only college freshmen still argue whether the world is just an illusion. Ok, yeah, sure, science is open to change. Theories must adapt to new information.
But if you want to argue that evolutionary theory isn’t a fact because science must be open to change, then why stop there? Why don’t we ever have to deal with reporters saying that gravity isn’t a fact?
The THEORY of gravity, based on research and experiment, predicts what will happen and describes what we believe has happened in the past (and is happening in the present). It’s not outside the realm of possibility that our understanding of gravity could change if we learn more about the universe.
But he doesn’t mention that. He doesn’t mention that, by his standards, there ARE NO FACTS. This guy wants to say that there are facts of biology, which are all supported by the theory of evolution. He makes this big magical distinction between facts and theories.
But why are there facts of biology? Name me a fact that a true scientist could say must always be true in every conceivable instance in the past and future of our infinite universe. Hell, name me a fact that we can say must be true NOW, rather than being an illusion of some kind, based on a sad misunderstanding of what we’re seeing.
Scientists know that every finding could be overturned by better findings in the future. They also mostly know that when you’re dealing with reasonable people, you can still assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, apples will fall from trees, heat will cook an egg, and creatures will evolve.
A scientific theory is different from your brother’s theory that chicks dig a guy with sideburns. A scientific theory may as well be called “a fact as good as any other fact that we accept as true.” Sometimes those facts will be overturned, but put them all in the same basket.
I was with you right up to the end, when you said “Sometimes those facts will be overturned, but put them all in the same basket.” Not all scientific theories deserve to be in the same basket. Some are established and accepted theories that have been tested and can now be treated as fact until we have better information (gravity, for instance, but only so far as you keep it within either the Standard Model or the quantum model). Others are mathematical proofs that cannot be tested in the real world with known technologies and should generally be kept separate from the world of facts that we use to make decisions (String theory, for instance, is a mathematical curiousity with no relavence to anyone that actually has to perform an experiment). They do not belong in the same basket.
Otherwise, yes, I’m with you.
I agree with you, of course. The point is that if you say that no theory can be a fact, then you should include all theories (and facts) together.
If you’re willing to say that some theories are facts, then of course you can say that some aren’t.
I want to tell you that your children will be better people because of your writings. They will know you not only as “dad” but as an incredibly wonderful person. just and fyi..