Many of the elements of what I have been teaching on science since the early 90s are found in today’s 2008 articles, the original a paper by B.K. Jennings, PhD, a Canadian nuclear physicist, and the rebuttal by Amy and Michael Courtney, PhDs with the US Army. I will point out several key differences and the reasons for them.

My goal has been to provide an encyclopedic definition of science by which one might decide whether a proposition or field is or is not science. My definition must include the scientific method, which I propose is a checklist and not an ordered sequence or recipe of steps by which one does science. In that same vein, my definition of science is independent of the process by which one attained his results, which I call a model. So whether one arrived at a particular model by an orderly, well-controlled process or haphazardly, but blessed by fortuitous accident is irrelevant to the ultimate question: is the model science or non-science.

The Courtneys lay down the existence of natural laws and the constancy of observable natural law as axioms of science. I disagree. These are dreadfully close to fundamental religious tenets, and neither do, nor should, have a place in science. If natural laws exist, man has no way to discern them, and the scientist may not rely on his commune with the Creator. The models of science are creations of man, designed to have predictive power.

Sometimes models of quite different species but equal standing can represent the same reality. Computer emulations and thermodynamic models may compete for the same prediction. The models of Ptolemy and Copernicus were almost equal for many years, and the ultimate cosmological model based on relativity, which has replaced them both, seems about to self-destruct.

Constancy is presupposed in science in the following way. When the conditions of a model or met, a fact is predicted to emerge ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. It’s a presumption that goes without saying, and is unworthy of extracting as an axiom. If an unforecasted event occurs, then the model’s initial conditions are not satisfied. If something presumed constant is significantly a variable, then the model needs repair.

Jennings more than intertwines, he entangles the mostly academic concepts of carefulness, reproducibility, and peer-review into his model for science. The Courtneys astutely catalog these processes into one: “The author describes the three-legged stool of scientific error correction as experimental care, reproducible experiment, and peer review.” My preference for a definition of science is equally valid for a successful model tortured by error and correction along the way, and for its equivalent done right the first time at every step. The proof lies in the result, not the process.

The Courtneys rebut Jennings article by misunderstanding Occam’s razor. They use it not even as Jennings did. The Courtneys think that Occam’s razor is a method by which one chooses one theory over another based on the simpler theory. That is not Occam’s razor. As Jennings has described, Occam’s razor requires simplicity by eliminating extraneous conditions in one’s model. It is a principle that pares out irrelevancies, properties assumed in the model but which have no bearing on its predictions.

To show the fallacy in Occam’s razor, the Courtneys rely on an old argument to say, “One accurate observation of a white crow falsifies the theory that ‘all crows are black.’” This is sometimes used in philosophy to show the error intrinsic in induction or to support Popper and his falsification idea. The white crow is semantical nonsensical at the outset, and from that faux pas anything might be proved. (In logic, A and not A implies X, where X is any statement.) Dictionaries define a crow as a certain genus of songbirds with black plumage. A white crow cannot be observed until white is black, or the definition needs fixing so that an example of a white crow is not a white ’57 Corvette. It’s also wrong to call the statement “all crows are black”, which is true by definition, a theory. It is a definition.

Occam’s razor not only survives the Courtneys, it is compulsory in scientific modeling. Extraneous assumptions are the distractions of magic.

Now Jennings should have applied Occam’s razor to shave the three error correction processes from his model for science. Consider the thought experiment wherein a champion model predicts some surprising new result, which becomes validated. Whether it was supported by careful or clumsy experiment would have no bearing. Whether it was peer reviewed or not would be irrelevant, too. This hypothetical model certainly could not have been shown to be irreproducible, but the fact that it has yet to be demonstrated reproducible is no stumbling block to its recognition.

In a different way, the reproducibility clause can be shown to be irrelevant. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar won the 1983 Nobel prize for a mere calculation he made in 1930: the maximum mass of a white dwarf star before it goes supernova. No one asks that a calculation be reproducible because that is embodied in just being accurate and worthy of being called not a miscalculation. A related piece of evidence here is that Chandrasekhar was prevented from publishing his 1930 results for failing to gain peer acceptance at the time. Instead of fighting that battle, he resorted to keeping detailed notebooks of his work, and apparently his Nobel prize came from them.

I find science to be a branch of knowledge, not a pedagogy. Moreover, it is the objective branch of knowledge, meaning it lies entirely in the domain of facts. It maps real world facts into real world facts. Nothing subjective may be brought into its models or into the field itself. Whether a scientist’s work is careful or satisfies his peers are strictly subjective standards. Whether it is reproducible is ultimately for the gut feeling of other scientists, and again subjective.

In defining science, an announcement that all the elements of the model are true and accurate as stated may be presumed. This is elementary logic. A model has any number of boundary and initial conditions, and perhaps one or more triggering external events, all leading to a prediction. The statement that a constraining condition must exist is no different when given evidence that it truly did exist. In symbolic logic, the proposition that A implies B means that the truth of A results in B. It is not a statement that when A has repeatedly been shown to be true that B follows.

Now repeatability does relate to the statistics in the model, both with respect to the initial conditions and with respect to the prediction. A full scientific model must be clear about not only the nominal value of its predictions, but about its probability distribution as well. Only when that probability distribution is validated will the model move from a theory to a law. The Rest Day articles do not discuss these statistical aspects of science. Jennings eliminates supernatural forces from models because they contribute nothing to the predictions. He should have done the same with his quality control standards.

On page 10, Jennings discusses three lines of peer review as follows:

>>The first line of peer review is the informal discussions a scientist has with his colleagues. Many errors are caught at this stage. The second line of peer review comes from the anonymous reviewers who act as gate keepers for scientific journals. Third is the review a paper receives after it has been published. The first and third types of peer review are much more important than the second. Important papers are probably correct, not because the author is infallible, but because many people have independently checked the results and looked very hard for errors. It is only after this independent checking that a paper should be assumed correct. Unimportant or less studied papers probably lack the third level of review and should be treated more suspiciously. The third type of peer review can take place without the second or even the first. This happens to papers that appear on the web archives (lanl.arxiv.org for example) with critical papers commenting on them appearing before the first paper is formally published. This is quite valid and very important peer review.

I agree. In my lectures, peer review refers to the second line by independent gatekeepers for journals. And I like to point out that the third line substitutes for the second. Still, none of these are prerequisites for a model or a field of study to be science.

I know of no prize of any import being given to a scientist for his carefulness, for the repeatability inherent in his model, or for the fine job of peer review. Prizes generally go to the creative part of science: the design of clever experiments and the creation of models with noteworthy predictive power. The three quality elements are important to the process, to the management, and to the control of science. They distinguish claims as being true or erroneous. They contribute nothing to the ultimate test whether astrology, parapsychology, cosmology or climatology, or one of the models form such a field qualifies as science.

Jennings says, “The only important, enduring property of a model is its predictions for observations.” P. 23. One more application of Occam’s razor would have separated science from the academic checks against the foibles of scientists and their conformity to the leading models of the day.

good read.

Perron ... t'es laite en cliss sur ta photo ... hehehe ... good job buddy, beau projet en vue ... lache pas el gros

Coach Bureau qui torche Perron

M'a battre Bainbridge stie

Rest...love it cuz i need it....hate it because i get so antsy!
Enjoy it everyone, Tuesday will come soon enough!

Much needed rest, THANKS!

Happy rest day everyone...

Drink a beer for us over here.. haha

Congratulations Doug Meahger for becoming Crossfit USA's newest coach.

Merle
Crossfit USA

I went to the Level 1 Cert at Malvern Prep, P.A. this past weekend and it was awesome. For the limited amount of time the trainers had with us, they presented us with invaluable information across the board; whether dealing with one of the nine foundational movements of CF, programming, or just general questions asked by the people attending. The entire team did a great job and I was very impressed with how they handled the Cert.

This Cert was my first time doing a WOD with other Crossfitters and competing for the best time, and it was pretty cool. You can definitely give a much better effort when people are cheering you on and doing the WOD with you. Although I did lose to Tanya Wagner, she is a beast and I wish her good luck at this year's east coast qualifier and games (hopefully!). Overall it was a great experience and I had a great time. I highly recommend attending a Level 1 Cert, it is well worth it.

rest hard everyone

Gymastics Cert. this past week-end in Oakville, Ontario, Canada...
Tucker from GSX is an awesome teacher and coach - we learned so much. The week-end was intense - but filled with information that will make us better and more confident Cross Fitters and trainers.
He is such a passionate man, who loves and knows his material inside and out - that comes across in every word he speaks and demonstration he gives. The week-end was an invaluable experience and reaffirms what a beautiful thing CrossFit and this community is...
Tucker - just remember "P... and B..."!
Come back to Canada soon!

i dont want an off day :(

any suggestions on some accessory work?

Day 11

Rest

Much needed.

as rx'd

24 hours

i dont want an off day :(

any suggestions on some accessory work?

Comment #12 - Posted by: SMC/25/M/205/5'10

Gymnastics! HSPU and Muscle-ups. :)

in courtesy to the people that hate the good wishes, supporting comments and friendship i'll make this quick...hi everyone each and everyone of you are wonderfull...

a GOOD sub for rowing...Carlox and i make a great sub TOUGH but GREAT!! we use the chair of the broken rowing machine and put it in front of a low pull machine so we have the mecanic movement of the rowing, the problem was thet we have NO meters counter so we do 50 rows with 65 pound..MAN THAT WAS TOUGH!!!!!

time 14:01 really really BADA$$ WOD...

i tried to make my post short as i could to those who HATES to read and search...BIG HUGS EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT REST DAY

s'more,

when you write your posts who are you writing too?

The people you are writing too want to hear from you (well at least I do)
Don't let the people who don't love you affect the way you love the people who do.

If Greg tells us to reel our comments in we should respect his request. Otherwise the haters can go pound sand.

Talk to me Brother. Big side hugs

thanks Jakers big side hugs too maeby is the poor sleep hours...thanks bro

"in courtesy to the people that hate the good wishes, supporting comments and friendship i'll make this quick...."

Comment #16 - Posted by: s'more

s'more, NO ONE hates your good wishes, and if they do, they're missing out! I have been thriving on your posts lately. Most of us are very fond of you, so DON'T make short posts! That is a great idea for subbing...is that idea what took you so long to post? :)

I think I wrote an email to Apollo the other day that was word for word what Papa Glassman began the comments with. Well I think I mentioned Occam's Razor & that is where the similarity ends.

Herm,
I think your review of the photo will increase viewership.

s'more

nice work man, happy rest day brother. How would we leave the comments section smiling if all we saw were times faster than ours (that's how it goes for me) which is fine because it motivates but big hugs bad english keeps us coming back man! Ha!

s'more....your warm wishes make me smile every time i read your posts!!! keep em coming! :)

s'more and my other comments page buddies:

Keep the kind words, clever ideas and funny stories coming, I love em'!

Right on target jakers, man hugs from me too :-)

"...big hugs bad english keeps us coming back man! Ha!"

Comment #21 - Posted by: fat tony at February 15, 2009 7:30 PM

fat tony, don't forget "side hugs" for jakers and "bad english with the best intentions" sometimes.

s'more, we love you! Please take Playoff Beard up on his offer to stay in his camper at the CF Games! Many of us hope to meet you, and get a big hug in real life. :)

s'more- keep it real brother and keep the posts coming. love em.

tested out the knee today for yesterdays wod. felt strong but was cautious. slow 2 min paced 400's

as rx'd 16:30

herm- great job on the wod

made up 7 rounds for time of:
95# SDHP 10 reps
10 ring dips (subbed 30 bar dips per round)
22 min

Herm is right s'more...you would be a hit!

and to everyone else, the Playoff Beard bus will be stocked with cold beer, make sure you come introduce yourself, I can't wait to meet you ;-)

"tested out the knee today for yesterdays wod. felt strong but was cautious. slow 2 min paced 400's...as rx'd 16:30"

Comment #25 - Posted by: Rookie

That is blazing for "taking it easy", Rookie! Thanks for the props. Although it took 30 min, it was a great feeling to get a subbed WOD finally :)

Hey how can Jolie be at the 2 places at the same time I ask!?

Please share your teleportation skillz Jolie :)

"I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism."

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

These guys use a lot of bits to try to express what Einstein wrote 75 years ago.

I am two WOD's behind, no rest for the me.

Regarding Comment #6:

Sir,

Your observations regarding "Photo #1" are inappropriate and bush league. The woman you mentioned is a personal friend and my buddy's wife (Navy SEAL).

The gentleman holding the crutches was injured in the line of duty--and he has courage to burn.

Perhaps we can discuss this in person sometime.

Until then, your public apology would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thompson
817-706-0532

thanks guys...this is the kind of friendship that i mean....

and yes the late post was for that indeed Herm we figured out the way to train the most close to the wod and i think we had succed...

Playoff Beard if a were alone belibe me i were there and do the possible to compete no matter if i finish last but the games are just impossible because my in comming babygirl there is only one thing that makes me happy and that thing it...I'LL BE THERE THE NEXT YEAR AS A COMPETITOR!!!...just kidding!! but i'll be there to see the games

Playoff Beard, Cookie, Eric gohl, Jakers, fat tony thanks again

"Regarding Comment #6:"

Comment #31 - Posted by: Andrew Thompson at February 15, 2009 8:30 PM

Andrew, comment #6 would be me, but it was taken down by board owners.

In no way was I offending any individuals in the pic with my comments, merely the fact that she was the first thing to attract my eye in the picture, and then I noticed the crutches in the background. I don't want to fight about my comment about the picture, and I don't know anyone personally in the pic outside of Kurtis and Jolie. So I am regretful that you found my comment offensive. Goodnight.

I just did the Level 1 certification down at Alamo Crossfit this weekend. I wanted to say that I really enjoyed it. The team of coaches and trainers really worked well in developing and teaching the core concepts of Crossfit over the weekend. I've been following Crossfit for over a year but never had any expert training and am really glad that I got a chance to attend this cert. Just want to say thanks to the guys out there....Chuck, Jon, Curtis, Jolie, Andrew and the entire Alamo Crossfit team for having us. It was a great experience...thank you.

I participated in the Level 1 cert this weekend at Alamo CrossFit. A big thanks to Andrew, Jon, Jolie, Curtis, and Chuck, and the guys at Alamo CF, Rick, Bryan, and Eric.

The Cert was well worth it. A ton of info was presented and the ability to ask questions and have discussions about the material was invaluable. We got some great training and everyone had a good time, even during the Tabata Squats, Team Fran, and Alamo Gone Bad!

s'more we love you bro!!

excellent rest day reading material. if you havent yet, Let Dr. Jennings lay some knowledge on you

I attended the Level 1 Certification at CrossFit Asia this past weekend, 14-15 Feb. The Cert went extremely well due to the efforts of Jimi Letchford, Freddy C, Speal, Lisa and Mike Ray, and the CrossFit Asia Staff. It was an outstanding experience getting to know each of the trainers and delve into the depths of CrossFit.

Specifically, I learned the weaknesses I have in the movements. I have been CrossFitting for about 9 months full time and I have experience with the Hammer Throw at the Division 1 level. In all of my training, I never learned what it was like to feel the correct positions like I learned at the Cert. It hurt so good to be sitting in the bottom of a Front Squat and, for the first time ever, have someone correct me on my lazy bottom position. I learned about the things I have always taken for granted, I learned how to properly load my hamstrings (thanks Lisa) and maintain the back angle out of a Deadlift. Outstanding information regarding the movements and coaching that is well worth every penny.

Regarding the classes: Mike Ray gave fantastic descriptions regarding What Is CrossFit, What Is Fitness, and Nutrition. In my opinion, the presentations he gave showed CrossFit in a light most people in the GloboGym community have a hard time grasping. The evidence presented no place for argument in regards to the safety, efficiency and efficacy of CrossFit.

Future Level 1 attenders: If you are planning on attending a Cert, Do it! It is well worth every penny and every ounce of pain that comes with doing 4,000 air squats in two days. If you haven't CrossFitted before or haven't bought off 100% on CrossFit, go with an open mind. There were Marines there that were "Voluntold" to go by their commands, and I don't think they got the full experience because they didn't recognize their own biases. Either way, show up to learn, check your ego at the door, and take it all in. If you do all of these things, it will be an experience you will not soon forget.

Think I'll take a nap.

Jeff,

I had some trouble putting together you definition of science from your comment.

These portions of your post seemed relevant to my understanding or your definition of science:
- science must contain "the scientific method", which you propose is a checklist
- science is independent of the process by which one attains her results, i.e., independent of "model"
- science is not based on the false axioms that natural laws exist, and that observations of natural laws are (must be?) constant
- science presupposes the constancy of observations ceteris peribus, but does not rely on constancy as an axiom,
- science emphasizes results over process
- science requires persons doing scientific modeling to employ Occam's razor
- science does not require that confirming observations be reproducible
- science requires a model's probability distribution to be validated before that model qualifies as a law
- scientists sometimes wrongly identify (1) the design of clever experiments and the (2) creation of models with (3) noteworthy predictive power as being relevant to the ability of science to distinguish between true and false models, but these things are really only relevant to the management and progress of science
- science is a branch of knowledge, not a pedagogy

So from this, I believe I understand that you are not very concerned with a scientist's method, or with her model, or with the predictive power of her model, but with her results, with the knowledge her explanation gives us.

What then, if anything, distinguishes science from the knowledge gained by the application of rigorous common sense?

You see, I tend to think there is just worse thinking and better thinking. And what is better and what is worse depends on context. If you have access to a cyclotron and you have certain questions about atomic particles, then better thinking involves considering some things, while if you have access to the London bills of mortality and have certain questions about the spread of the plague, then better thinking involves considering some things.

I think you're right not to put too much emphasis on "method" but it seems to me when someone says to the scientist "prove it", "show me", "why should I believe you", the scientist will often have to point to some aspect of her method, and say: "because I did these things, which let me confirm that, which indicates this, that's why you should believe me." It seem to me that to say science is a branch of knowledge and not a pedagogy is true insofar science is not, as you said last day, a "recipe", but is rather a "checklist". But, it is a pedagogy insofar for any "checklist" to qualify as "scientific" it must be set out with a certain attitude in mind. Science is animated by an "attitude", which must be taught, and applied, and to that extent, it is pedagogical. It is not simply secularism. Secularism has fixed content. Science has no fixed content and no fixed methods, these are contextual and change with the passage of time, invention, and opportunity. Science may have a fixed attitude, however, the attitude of Descartes and Newton, and Boyle and Darwin etc.

I'd like to make just one passive (oops) comment on the Jennings article: the passive voice was used too often; the writing style was made less precise as a result; it was indicative of the fact that this manner of communicating should be relegated to the lab report; the reader was frustrated by this; and the quality of an otherwise thoughtful overview was diminished.

The other article was almost unreadable due to the preponderance of the same defect.

"Occam's Razor" --- which may be traced back at least as far as Aristotle and, in its modern form, hasn't much to do w/ the historical person William of Ockham --- is a notoriously loose idea, amenable to several different interpretations. For instance, it can be interpreted as a methodological principle, whereby it *is* "a method by which one chooses one theory over another based on the simpler theory." But it can also be interpreted as an epistemic principle, whereby it becomes a prescription for allocating cognitive resources (i.e., belief). Such differences matter when it comes to expressing, and rationally justifying, whatever type of "simplicity" (syntactic, ontological) that Occam's Razor is supposed to promote.

For good overviews of this fascinating topic (which is only incidental to this discussion, I know), check out

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/

and

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~dld/Occam.html

I have yet to read today's articles, however I plan on achieving this tomorrow. I just wanted to remark on how amazing I find it that this community find it imperative to not only train our bodies hard, but our minds as well.

Herm hope you're healing well S'more hope you're doing well over there brother. Everyone have a great day.

Just read the abstract and heading to the lunch room...

Philosophical realism can only be recovered by a subtle use of Occam's razor... the nature of the difference between science and religion is explored...

Wow! Thoroughly Exciting.

I hate rest days over here. Crossfit is the only fun thing to do here in Kuwait.

M/31/80kg/178cm

Well, I ended up doing yesterday's WOD again today - it's okay, because I had different subs, so I got my (small) dose of "constantly varied" ;)

Yesterday:

50 SDHP
21 Burpees
400m run (outside)
3 rounds in 17:14

Today:

500m row
21 Burpees
400m run (treadmill)
3 rounds in 19:36

I conclude that the C2 row is harder than the 20kg SDHP.

(or maybe I was just a more little tired)

Like my college football coach would say:

"Work hard, rest hard... ... work little, rest little"

Moral of the story if you work hard, take advantage of the hard earned rest. And if you don't work hard, coach won't let you rest. So just make sure to work hard haha.

So if the entire world was created last Thursday... and all memories implanted... and starlight created in transit.

Does that make the rest of the article incorrect?

Awesome group of L1s at Malvern this past weekend. Congrats to all of you and the hard work you put out on the WODs and group instruction. It was a pleasure working with all of you.

Hi can any one tell me is the journal link broken

Im a subscriber and have been tryin for the last hour but it keeps telling me the link appears broken.

Cheers

I've always viewed science as more of a way of thinking than a body of knowledge. Healthy skepticism and curiosity are what makes science what it is, and we would not have any of that knowledge without it.

All I have to say is a Level 1 Cert is a must. Unless you are in a good box, you will never come to the realization of that almost all the movements you have been doing were wrong. I now feel like I can train the world. I will use my wife as the first student. She has said that she will do everything that I train her on, no questions asked.

More on the cert. The cert is awesome. All the trainers are awesome. Freddy C, Jimi Letchford, Chris Spealler (Speal), Mike and Lisa Ray. The host box (CrossFit Asia) is bad@ss as well. Jaime has his sh!t together.

THANKS to all the trainers that came out. THANKS to Jaime for being a kick@ss host. I will take the knowledge I have gained and pass it on to all that will hear me out.

s'more- before you wrote it, I knew your limiting factor. La hija-por supuesto! My CrossFit place is a little far, like 35 minutes, but the main limiting factor is my daughter. Being able to work out with my flesh and blood friends is unbelievably motivating, and I *love* going but if I WOD there, (and I could bring her, I know) then I would be hard to pressed to do the things with her that trump CrossFit- the sit down, home made dinners *every night*, reviewing her homework, sitting on her bed, winding her hair up into foam rollers before bed, going for our mile walk after dinner, that kind of stuff. I hope that doesn't sound like single mom whining. It's not. If I WOD at my globo early in the AM, then I can do all those things in the afternoon and evening with her. While I get a better workout at Guerilla Fitness, my globo makes the rest of my life roll easier.

Which brings me to my next point, the way everybody jumped to shout out support to s'more is what I love 'bout the comments, and why I feel you guys really are my friends. This really does help with motivation for my WODs and I don't refer to you all anymore as my "online" friends, which always got looks anyway. LOL

jakers- Yes, True Romance rules. Papa Glassman?!?! ROFL. Indeed! Give J vs V another try.

PlayoffBeard- LOL OK, cool- thought visiting privileges to the Mystery Machine were limited to the He Man Woman Hater's Club, like the Little Rascals LOL "you're gonna have to love and honor me for about 30 seconds"

Coach, I think this often, but say it rarely- *thank you*.

Cookie- yay for posting!

Sailor Erin- where are you?

BEST LINE "Extraneous assumptions are the distractions of magic." Isn't that exactly the point? To wittle out the 'distractions' you need methodology and experimentation. Personally I like self-experimentation and would add 'facio' to sum,cogito,video - I think, observe, and do, therefore I am. That is a great motto for Crossfit!
I will take 3 days of Fran in a row over that awful conglomeration of 17 minutes of pain yesterday...

A good way to think of Occam's Razor is:

If theory T1 with m assumptions, T1(m), exists, and a theory T2 with n assumptions, T2(n) exists, and both T1(m) and T2(n) explain event E equally as well, choose T1 as your preferred candidate, if and only if m < n.

It is not saying T1 is probably right, it is just saying that they both explain E equally, so a sensible guideline is to not complicate matters and stick with the one that has less assumptions going into it.

I love sports psychology, took many classes in undergrad, toyed with (still do) getting my masters in it. Hero is John Wooden. I love NCAA basketball, (Big East!), and found this quote by Adolph Rupp (Kentucky)while reading over the weekend.

"Coaching is the art of making athletes behave like thoroughbreds. When you call upon a thoroughbred, it gives you all its heart and sinew; when you call upon a jacka** it kicks."

Thanks again Coach.

well that's a lot better than posting "first!"

my brain hurts way too much for this early in the morning on a holiday!

25/M/165/5'10"
Ever have one of those days where you just can't stop? Here is mine:

Crossfit Warm Up,

Crossfit Endurance WOD: Run as far as possible in 35 minutes: 5.9 miles (PR).

Then did: 1 round of 1X(strict) pullup, pushup, squat, dip; 2x(strict) pullup, pushup, squat, dip; 3x (etc.) up to 10.

Then did: 4 walking squats, 10 push press, for 50m with 50lbs barbell. Same with 40lbs, Same with 30lbs.

SMOKED!

I had the honor of attending the CrossFit Level 1 cert at Alamo CrossFit. It was well worth it.
The “Mobile Training Team” was fantastic. Each member was articulate, knowledgeable and approachable. They fielded questions, adapted to the class tempo and delivered exceptional training interspersed with solid lecture material. The break outs into small groups and the flow from station to station was kept on course and well managed. Andrew, Chuck, Jolie, Jon and Kurtis each had a different perspective and style. Taken together they were wonderful ambassadors for the Crossfit community. Rick, Bryan, and Eric at Alamo CrossFit were also fantastic hosts.
As I was leaving Andrew asked me to post to the comments section and “tell us how we can do better.” In all honesty, I can not think of one thing I would change, or something I felt was lacking.
JJ from CrossFit Central in Austin

So we had the Alabama CrossFit games.. V'day games.... and WoW i used to think i was in shape until that... what a humbling experience.... it was awesome though.... considering i'm only 19 and have been doing this for 4 months i was okay with the performance... hahaha it was fun though!!!!

Ahh a rest day, for those of you new to xfitt you will learn to love the rest day as tomorrow only brings more fun with intensity! I def need the rest day after hanging wall cabinets at my friends house all weekend long, that makes for one hell of a WOD! Crossfit at 8am and then my friends from 10 to wee hours of the night! Now were talking!!

S'more people would be crazy not to want your generosity and respect! Your inspiration is the driving force behind a lot of people on here! Also if you left who would I compete against??

Individual's like Herm, Rookie, Fat Tony, Strong Lil Pony, myself, Allison, Eric, Jennifer, jakers, Playoff Beard (just to name a few) all look forward to your post as we do from each other. The community has the ability to push one another and commend without the other person physically being in the room with you. If you or any of the individuals who represent the Crossfit community as we know it were "quieted" for one reason or another it would be great lost, so in wrapping up KEEP THE POST COMING! HUGS ALL AROUND!!!!!!

...looking forward to tomorrows workout...

Had the pleasure of attending Tuckers Gymnastics cert in Oakville this past week end. Tucker is as passionate and knowledgeable as it gets. When a big ol Texan sheds a tear you dam well know that he gives a shit. Thanks so much for sharing your insights, jokes and experience. It was truly and honour and pleasure to work and break bread with you.

Cheers have a great time in Sydney and am looking forward to the "teaser"

P.S I AM going to make that Handstand my bitch!

S'more....

Keep it up!!!!!!! I don't even know you, nor will I likely ever meet you, but the encouragement definitely helps this newb!

Did the Level 1 cert in San Antonio at Alamo Crossfit. Top notch instructors and awesome support by the folks at Alamo. Excellent training and organization, and much respect to all involved.
Respectfully,
Jeff Gainok
CPT/US Army

I'm with Andrew on this one. Regardless of whether it was meant to be offensive or not, it was.

Hey c'est vrai! Perron est sur une des photos!

Pis écoute pas alex :P Yé juste jaloux de tes gros guns!

What a fantastic weekend we had with Andrew, Jon, Jolie, Kurtis and Chuck at the Level I cert at Alamo Crossfit in San Antonio. These instructors were all professional, knowledgable, and approachable and presented the information in a clear, concise fashion. I loved learning about the "magic of the movements, the science behind the model, and the art in the programming". (I know it went something like that!!) I especially liked the practical work where proper form and technique was the order of the day and the athlete walked away from the session with a solid foundation and base understanding of the 9 fundamental movements. It was an unbelievable experience and I loved every minute of it, including "Alamo Gone Bad" and "Team Fran". (Our clever instructors creatively pulled together some great workouts to accomodate our group, available equipment, and work space...ahh, the art of the programming!) I also think that the information I have learned from the Crossfit Journal over the past year and a half was hugely helpful in providing for me a strong base of knowledge coming into the cert. Finally, I want to say thanks to all the people at Alamo Crossfit. Their facility is top notch and Rick, Bryan, and Eric couldn't have been kinder or more hospitable. Thanks guys!!

Prole #40,

You have a discerning eye for grammar. The passive voice can certainly make for dull reading, and that might require some compensation by the writer. The core objection to the passive voice is ambiguity. The passive voice is an art form in politics (“Mistakes were made.”) and in law where one can simply remove the actor from the verbs. The passive voice is a disease in science writing. However, I combed Jennings paper for passive voice examples of which you complained, and could find none that led to any ambiguity.

A crime much worse than ambiguity is misquoting. You presented 10 bulleted “portions of [my] post”, only one of which I recognize to be my words, and most of which are your conclusions. I can't defend either paraphrases of what I wrote, or your conclusions mistakenly drawn from what I wrote. I strive to write with the same precision required in science, and I have chosen my phrasing not by accident.

You wrote:

>>So from this, I believe I understand that you are not very concerned with a scientist's method, or with her model, or with the predictive power of her model, but with her results, with the knowledge her explanation gives us.

[You see - an actual quote addressed.]

Science, not me, is all about the predictive power of models. It is not about explanation, because explanation, like description, is a subjective process and science is exclusively objective from its inputs to its outputs. My writing may be obscure and boring, but it is not wrong because it explains nothing to Prole, or describes nothing that Prole can recognize. The results of value in science are the predictions and their validation.

You wrote:

>>What then, if anything, distinguishes science from the knowledge gained by the application of rigorous common sense?

Predictions, and then their validation by a fresh set of facts.

Rigorous common sense might inhibit you from riding a toboggan off a ski jump, but the implied prediction unfulfilled involves little science and no knowledge gained. On the other hand, common sense omitted does lead to factual knowledge: bad examples.

Buy in
Jump rope
L-sits
HSPU progressions
Back squat 26kg x5 / 51 x5 / 61 x5 / 71 x5

ME Back Squat in kg
75 x5 / 77 x5 / 79 x5 PR

Metcon “Helen”
Time 10:47 PR by 2:13
first time doing this one RX’d (previous effort 12:58 with only 18kg for swing)

Cash out
Freestanding handstand attempts

So we're all part of a science experiment? Is that why we post our results?

Did yesterday's WOD today

3 rounds
50 SDHP w/45 lbs (no rower)
21 Burpees
400 m run (on treadmill)

Time: 13:36

I surprised myself because I only had to take a short breather(@5 secs) twice; on the 2nd and 3rd round of burpees.

Happy rest day everyone. I'll have my turn tomorrow.

CFWUx3
3 Rounds
Row 500m
21 Burpees
Run 400m - outside

28:59

Closest I've come to Rx'd in my 3 month + 1 day CrossFit career!

Had to sub SDHP 35# 50 reps for row in round 2 when the C2 was occupied. Thought the worst part of the burpees would be the push ups, but it was the jumping back in - which quickly turned to stepping in - that wiped me right out. I hate burpees!!!

s'more - you have quite a fan club here... I ALWAYS look for your posts! BTW - that's great your Mom is CrossFitting with you! Wish Ecuador wasn't so far away - It would be fun to work out with someone in my age bracket! Big hugs.

F58/140/5'2" (almost)

I want to say thanks to all the great people who attended the Level 1 Cert. in San Antonio. It was our pleasure and honor to host such a great and valuable 4 days. I personally learned from everyone there; from the worlds greatest and brightest trainers and all of the future CrossFit trainers. If you're ever in San Antonio again, I ask you to.... Remember the Alamo!

I just now experienced something very important...

In the time it took me to eat the bag of Peanut M&Ms my mom gave me I came to realize:
1. I feel like balls
2. They don't even remotely sound appetizing anymore
3. I feel like balls

Don't worry, it's a cheat day. But i think it's a big step into becoming 100% off the "crack". First step is admitting you have a problem. I guess the second step is making yourself regret it lol.

Hope everyone's rest day is going well! Mmm rest and relaxation :)

Hit it hard today........for me:

16 Feb 2009-02-16, 0700hrs
3 rounds for time of:
Row 500 meters
15 Burpees
Run 400 meters

25:34 1st Time

16 Feb 2009-02-16, 1130hrs

7 rounds for time of:
95# SDHP 10 reps ( went with 85)
10 ring dips (assisted with shortest bench)

13:29 1st Time

Tired as hell, but can't wait until tomorrow......mind you I probably won't be able to lift my arms above my nips!

Rested over weekend. Performed push/pull combo:
Warm up - tempo run, 5.75mi with 4x 1/2mi pick-ups to 10K pace

3 rounds for time with 2 min rest b/t

85# thruster 10 rep
pull up 10 rep
85# SDHP 10 rep
dip 10 rep

kept a good time, 2:30, 2:42, 3:06. Ready for tomorrow!

Just out of curiosity, what is the origin of the INFIDEL on the CF shirts? Is it a comment on the worn out dogma of traditional bodybuilding or what?

This has nothing to do with the articles or anything, but my Dad and I were talking this weekend, and he came up with an excellent idea...at least I thought it was. We're spending, what, $790 Billion to stimulate our economy and save a bunch of corporations from going out of business, right? And the reason for all this is to save people's retirements that were squandered by corporate giants and save jobs in the motor industry. Well, there's about 300 million people in the US, right? Last year, pretty much everybody who filed taxes got a $600 check? Well, why not give everyone who files taxes this year a million bucks? It's a fraction of what it would cost to bail out these companies, and most people are going to blow all their money on new vehicles, homes, etc. The economy gets boosted, and everybody's happy! I know it's just a handout, but at least it's a handout going directly to the people instead of these knucklehead corporate folks who go on retreats in private jets in the Caymans. Anyone with me on this one?

Ross Naughton #41, Justin Smith #54

Justin's formula is in accord with the Courtneys' model, which I have criticized. Competing models exist for many Real World phenomena, and often they are scale dependent, as when trying to bridge quantum theory and relativity, or thermodynamic models and computer emulations. No one in science counts the number of assumptions in competing models to prefer one over the other.

Occam's Razor is rarely if ever cited in science. Philosophy, which someone called chewing gum for the mind, is quite a different story. There Occam's Razor is a delightful spearmint.

Any law in science can be restated truthfully with something like an Intelligent Designer added to the initial conditions. That may have been the style in the 19th Century, and compulsory before that. It is practiced today in climatology where a paper had better mention how its results fit in to Anthropogenic Global Warming if the writer has any hopes of publication in a peer reviewed journal.

AGW blah blah leading to Climate Change blah blah blah. Charles Keeling and CO2 blah blah blah blah. More new measurements of aerosols and cloud formation. Print it.

As practiced in science, Occam's Razor is an elementary theorem in symbolic logic: “A and B implies A”. B is extraneous, and a distraction. In an elegant model, all the Bs will be gone.

30/f/115

Fran: 3:03

65# thursters

Ugh. I feel like i will never get the sub 3 fran! 10 sec PR, could have been sub 3 if I did not break up the 15 set of pull-ups. thursters felt surprisingly strong. pull-ups were the weak link this time.

Anyone in the Canadian Military on here?

Can't wait to see what is coming tomorrow.

#77 JD, sorry to burst your bubble, but 300 million * 1 million is 300 trillion. $790 billion split amongst the citizens of this countries is ~$2630.

#31 Andrew Thompson

Okay. I have to through in my change here.

I didn't have the pleasure of reading Herm's post before it was taken down, however, I can say this. With all of the wonderful and helpful posts that come from Herm, with his tenure and the fact that he runs with a standup crowd...it surprises me that you, or anyone else, would have the audacity to squeal about something that he said. Really?

If he mentioned something about the young lady in the front row, almost center, well heck...she is the first thing that I noticed in the picture as well! Beautiful work of God. The fact that she is the wife of a SEAL (save the "oh yeah, well my friend can kick your friends a$$.." childlike mentality, it has not place here), girlfriend of an EOD, cousin of the president, or Glassman's own offspring neither adds nor subtracts anything to her optical appeal. Who cares?! I work with SEAL teams and EOD's everyday, you don't see me for the past two years signing "JroCk-Beach CrossFit, works with SEALs, EOD, has a beautiful wife to be, makes $xx, xxx a year.." blah blah blah. Please.

Asking for a public appology is ludicrous. THIS IS A FREE SITE DUDE! "Next, on channel 13. Herm, a Los Altos CrossFitter will be making a public appology, as millions gather, to Andrew...ah, Andrew...Andrew WHO?" LMAO! Silly, very silly.

And lastly. Save your "wanna take this outside" mentality for the hip hop bars, broheim! Once again, they have no place here! "Maybe you'd like to talk about this in person.." LMFAO! Not to mention, there are a number of us here that sit at the table that are very sympathetic and empathetic to some of the hurdles Herm is jumping over right now, and would gladly take his place as your huckleberry, if ever the opportunity arose!

Could someone please direct Mr. Thrompson to the teen chatrooms so that he can pick a fight with someone, well..his own age, and let the adults talk here!

Chuckling rant over.

(it has been quite some time that I have ranted...it was built up...my appo...no, never mind, no appologies! That was good!)

~J~

Accept the Challenge, Train Hard and Push Through "IT"!

someone please help..
last night i was standing for probably about 2 hours straight.. i noticed myself locking my knees (dont know if thats a problem) but once i went to walk again i felt a stabbing pain in my knee. this morning when i woke up it feels like it is right behind my knee cap and its makes a popping noise. i cannot squat without my knee giving out.. what could this be? is it maybe just tweaked and it will go away?

jrock- you are outta line, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Great 4 days hosting some fine Americans and one hell of a CrossFit training crew.
Thanks to everyone for making this a memorable event.
Drew, not that you need it Marine, but I got your back...anytime, anyplace.
Alamo CrossFit...home away from home to any warrior, wounded or not.

24/m/171/5'11"

The company gym I work out at added a C2 rower last week, so I did a leisurely 2k row for practice.

10:40

300 workout today. Have to put my buddy's time to the test.

The post got taken down, sooo, I'm going to go out on a limb and conclude it must've been offensive. Wish I could read what generated all the fuss.

Hey everybody,
Just wanted to say hello. Started cf on sunday after a week or so of reading the message boards and checking out the workouts. Seems like you guys have a great community.
First workout was 22min and I was dying. Guess you gotta start somewhere.

Jason

I posted on the WTB picture already but again I would like to say that it was an inspiration and a wonderful experience. Have a good week CrossFit!!

oh boy didn't bingo say sumthin' bout comment board being a big dining room table? I related my noisy dinners with my 10 brothers and sisters. Didn't anybody else grow up in a big family? C'mon. Relax. When things would get out of hand, and often they would, everybody else stays out of it. No sides are taken. You still love your brother even when he's being a jerk (not saying you are Herm), and you still love your sister even when she's in massive hysterics (not saying you're being a girl Andrew). You roll your eyes and patiently wait for them to .... drumroll... *get over it* which they will. So let's post about the articles, about Coach Glassman, about the pleasant rest day, about the obsessive site checking thats going to start as the day wears on and we await, like good little children, tomorrow's WOD.

in8girl- thanks for the email babe!

Jeff, would you mind putting your definition of science into as brief an outline as you can manage? I can't make heads or tails of it in long form, and I don't have a clue what you're ranting about.

zzzzzzzz

Nadia,

For sure I meant no offense to you or to anyone else. Outta line? Okay, as I stated in the first sentence, I didn't read the comment Herm put up. I said that becuase, well, I didn't.

This is a free site. There is no need to request public appologies. I did say that, and it is true.

There IS no need for the tough guy (girl) act on here, and it is childish when it comes up. I did say that, and it is true.

That the womans husband is a SEAL has no bearing on anything. It doesn't. I said that, and i meant it.

That the whole "wanna take this outside" attitude is ridiculous and should be left for a less mature crowd is also what I said, and I meant it.

Considering my first sentence stated that I did not read the post before it was taken off, the comments that followed were referring to things in a general way, vice the specifics of his post, WHICH, as I stated, I did not read.

With that said, I publicly appologize to any and all that I may have offended by my mildly humorous generalizations that, as a general rule without regards to the specificities of Herms comment, that I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO READ, are true.
(Is this banter and blathering truly nessasary? Sigh. Have a good day all!)

~J~

Well put Strong Lil Pony...

I will show myself the comment section door. :)

~J~

Oh, before I slither away.

Nadia,

Scale up with your weights for one month, including practicing thrusters with a heavier weight. THEN do "Fran" w 65#. My bet, and from having watched it and coached people through those walls, a sub 3 will be yours for the conquer.

Off I get.

~J~

M/23/165

20 mile ruck run 35-40lbs: 1hr 53 min 30 sec

One more month of training until the annual Bataan Memorial Death March.

I only train specifically for this competition once a week and use crossfit as my foundation for everything else, and have gotten awesome results.

No rest day for me.
For time
21 55lb thrusters
run 400 m
18 55lb thrusters
run 400 m
15 55lb thrusters
run 400m
not pleasant running in the wind and rain but 13:13 :) my legs are still trashed. one of my 8 yr olds was watching my WOD and informed me i am not driving from my heels coming up on my thrusters!! I love it!! She has seen to many vids!!!
Well said Lil Pony - I come from a family of 9 :) I swear we have parallel lives! lol!
Thanks JroCk - you said everything i wanted to (comment #94)
Happy President's Day to all!

correction 2 hr 53 min

JroCk,

I thought you handled it well. Andy sounds like a weenie. He might have had a point but he handled it poorly. His buddy sounds like he can't let it go.

I thought you hit a nice balance between knock it off you d bag and humor. I was tempted to respond but thought I would have put to heavy a hand on it.

Herm,
Get a signed release before you comment on anyone's physique. With the popularity of Crossfit the comment board is going to trend more pedestrian.

And did the Level 1 students get assigned homework? I can't wait to go in april but I don't remember other monday's having this many comments.

m/24/5'8/1651bs:

I had to do yesterday's WOD today because my gym is closed on Sundays.

I subbed 45#SDLHP for the 500m row for a time of 16:04. I felt like I could've pushed myself harder on the last 400m run.

Some of my friends came in the gym and were shooting hoops and trying to talk to me as I was doing this workout...they just don't understand.

Hello all!
Yesterday- My usual Sunday morning running. Yesterday, ran 10k.
Today-
3 R for time:
Row 500 meters
21 Burpees
Run 400 meters
= 20:00 even

Was not sure where the energy was going to come from today. Needing to get to bed earlier and sure could use a nap today! In fact, I almost fell asleep in church yesterday! Eeks! LOL And today been up since 4:30 am. Zzzzzzzz….

I want a sub 20 on this one next time! Took my time too much on burpees.

Anyone have any tips on planters fasciitis? I keep stretching but my heels become painful to just walk on.
Thanks!
Erin

Joe P, #93:

Fair enough. You can't hear this stuff too often.

Science is a branch of knowledge, the objective branch, and is ultimately public. It is embodied in Cause & Effect models of the Real World, where

a Conjecture is an uncontradicted Cause & Effect,

a Hypothesis is a Conjecture that accounts for all relevant facts (measurements compared to standards) in its domain, and predicts consequential phenomena or relationships,

a Theory is a Hypothesis for which one non-trivial prediction has been validated by fresh facts, and

a Law is a Theory for which all possible consequences of the model have been validated to a known accuracy.

Science has two branches, Basic Science in domains of the natural world, and Technology in domains of manmade objects and processes.

Science is the application of the Scientific Method, which comprises

I. FOUNDATIONS; Language, Logic, Mathematics

II. DISCOVERY; Observing; Measuring

III. CREATIVITY; Modeling, Predicting, Designing Experiments

IV. VALIDATION; Experimenting, Confirming

Did Highpulls and ringdips.

as rx'd 6:31

Drank lots of wine and ate great food on Friday night took Saturday to rest!

Jeff,

When I set out what I thought I understood as elements of your post that might be relevant to your definition of "science", I did so in part to show you that I'd read your entire post closely enough to put it in my own words (erroneously it now seems). I indicated that I wasn't sure if I could find a definition of "science" in your post, and in an effort to engage in constructive conversation I offered one that I thought might fairly encapsulate what I had identified. Obviously I was wrong. I didn't quote each point because that would have required quoting nearly all of your original post of 1000? 1500? 2000? words - not something I thought was necessary or desirable from the perspective of anyone else who might be reading these things. I don't think your writing is boring or obscure, though it is often uncharitable, and proudly so.

You seem to take my criticism of the writing styles of the papers you assigned us as something that required a rebuttal by you - have you, as appointed rest-day instructor taken offence at having one of your students criticize the quality of your prescribed readings (of course there were three prescribed readings this rest day, the third was written by Professor Glassman and is located at post #1)?

I see now I misunderstood the important role that prediction has in you conception of science.

The following paragraph was one of the sources of my confusion:

"I know of no prize of any import being given to a scientist for his carefulness, for the repeatability inherent in his model, or for the fine job of peer review. Prizes generally go to the creative part of science: the design of clever experiments and the creation of models with noteworthy predictive power. The three quality elements are important to the process, to the management, and to the control of science. They distinguish claims as being true or erroneous. They contribute nothing to the ultimate test whether astrology, parapsychology, cosmology or climatology, or one of the models form such a field qualifies as science" [especially the last sentence].

The following sentences from your later post have cleared up my confusion on the question of predictive power:

"Science, not me, is all about the predictive power of models. It is not about explanation, because explanation, like description, is a subjective process and science is exclusively objective from its inputs to its outputs....The results of value in science are the predictions and their validation [the omissions are my attempt to model charitable discourse for you]."

and

"You wrote:

>>What then, if anything, distinguishes science from the knowledge gained by the application of rigorous common sense?

Predictions, and then their validation by a fresh set of facts."

Very good then. But I still do not know what the Professor defines as science. Here's what I think is important to a definition he might give it: objective predictive capacity?

What is it about the common sense conclusion that tobogganing at speed (fast) off a ski jump of slope (steep) from a height of (high) will result in a fall (dangerous), ceteris peribus, that is not scientific?

I agree there is likely something about this conclusion that is unscientific, but I wonder if the thing that makes it unscientific is the lack of sophistication in the method and model used to reach that conclusion (see Julie at #53).

What if we said that tobogganing at speed (X) off a ski jump of slope (Y) from a height of (Z) will result in a fall (of Z1 metres), ceteris peribus, would that be scientific? more scientific?

You declared yourself the expert in post one, perhaps there are other students like myself who would like to hear the expert's definition of science, in one sentence, ok, two (we have other lectures to attend).

I'd like to say a special thanks to the team that conducted the Level I Cert at Alamo CrossFit. I've been weightlifting for 20 years and definitely developed some improper form. The team was very professional & the instruction will definitely help me train my Marines more efficiently and safely. Specifically, I really enjoyed the snatch instruction. I've always wanted to learn how to properly do the snatch & I found the instruction very easy to follow & powerful. Getting a Level I Cert had been a goal of mine for a very long time & I have no regret with dropping the money. It was well worth it.

And ... Chuck is the MAN!

Semper Fi,

-Mike

Jeff,

So as not to improperly quote you :-) I've Cut and Paste from your initial post the following...

"The models of Ptolemy and Copernicus were almost equal for many years, and the ultimate cosmological model based on relativity, which has replaced them both, seems about to self-destruct."

I agree that all paradigms self-destruct. But I am interested... what at this time makes it seem to you as if the cosmological model based on relativity is about to self-destruct?

Did a good one today. Recommend all try this one.
21-15-9 of the following for time:

115 lb Snatches
Ring Push-Ups

Time : 14:15

The Snatches creep up on you. Didn't start feeling this one until about an hour ago. ( 6 hrs. later)

Thanks to our fellow trainers, gracious hosts and most of all, the awesome group of participants at the Level 1 cert in Malvern. Great energy and a strong thirst for knowledge made for a great seminar. We were grateful to be able to participate and contribute.

- Dennis and Jenn

JroCk:

Nice job getting Herm's back, my sentiments exactly. I read his now removed comments and found no offense whatsoever. Of course, I know Herm to be a stand up dude.

Peace everybody :-)

As in other areas of life, I believe the first question that should be answered is the philosophical one: why. Why do we value science? or Why is the scientific method important?

I value science because it provides me with reliable, practical information. Such information is useful for improving my everyday life; while unreliable or impractical information is at best a waste of time and a worst detrimental or life threatening—so recognizing and avoiding such information is important not only to my happiness but to my health and long term survival.

Science, then, is a way of filtering information. The internal mechanism, of course, is the scientific method. This method is important because it is the actual process which filters out unreliable, impractical information.

Strictly speaking, the scientific method is a list of best known methods (BKM). Over time it has evolved into this:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Each of the above eight steps also have best known methods (BKM). For example, the BKM for #4 (Experiment) include double blind groups and controls, while the BKM for #5 (Analyze) include statistical analysis.

“Science” then, is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through the BKM for obtaining reliable, practical information--steps 1-8, namely, information which has been obtained via the scientific method.

while “Good Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, while also utilizing the BKM for each step – such as double blind groups, controls, and statistical analysis.

and “Poor Science” is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through steps 1-8, without utilizing the BKM for each step.

Prole, I believe the point Jeff was trying to make about common sense vs. science is though they do depend greatly upon one another, and use of each can result in the advancement of the other, in and of themselves they are two different entities (partly) because science relies on experimentation to confirm hypotheses and draw new conclusions whereas "common sense" relies on previous conclusions that could have been obtained scientifically or otherwise to make decisions. The act of science requires some element of "common sense" as each new hypothesis and experiment draw upon previously established data and models which may be lumped in the category of now "common sense", and without scientific observation and experimentation, "common sense" will not likely result in true assumptions. To continue with the analogy, looking at the toboggan going down a hill at a particular speed, common sense would say that going off a particular jump at a particular speed, one would not be able to clear a particularly long gap based upon previous observations. Scientific thought would reach the same hypothesis, but then would test the prediction through experimentation to confirm its truth.

If we evaluate CrossFit via the scientific method, we find that it has in fact passed through all 8 best known methods for obtaining reliable, practical information:

1. Define the question (What is Fitness?)
2. Gather information and resources (Observe)
3. Form hypothesis (the CrossFit method improves all 10 indicators of fitness)
4. Perform experiment and collect data (WODs)
5. Analyze data (times, rounds, skill competency)
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis (faster times, more rounds, greater skill competency)
7. Publish results (on CrossFit.com)
8. Retest (by thousands of athletes every day, including myself)

In the end, #8 (Retest) is the most vital step of the scientific method.

If you have a hypothesis which makes a claim, or an experiment which yields a certain result, what possible end does it serve if I cannot replicate it for myself?

I can read articles supporting a hypothesis that have passed through #1-7 until I am blue in the face. I can study hypotheses that have won the Nobel Prize or been published in a hundred peer-reviewed journals and cited in a thousand others, but what good is a theory of gravity if I cannot use it to reliably measure objects that I drop? What good is a hypothesis of fitness development if I cannot use it to develop my own fitness?

Really, what good is any hypothesis if you cannot use it to improve your own life?

Thus, the entirety of science is contained in #8 (Retest). Without the ability to reliably replicate results, science provides no better method of filtering information than turning in a circle and pointing your finger. Without #8, you are back to asking yourself “Why?”

The simple fact is you don’t have enough time to retest everything yourself. You choose what is most important (your health perhaps) and retest accordingly. The rest, well, you hope the scientists are doing their jobs…

Thanks JroCK- my brothers were all into wrestling and as a child I was put into a headlock on a near daily basis, and used as a human obstacle under a bike ramp built by my brothers during Evel Knievel's heyday. Just imagine...1 bathroom for 13 people LOL and btw, I didn't think what you wrote was that inflammatory, my post was more like a kick under the table kinda thing. Oh and I love all your videos on youtube.

Cookie- re: our parallel lives, does that mean I will end up with a Crossfittin' stud like Herm? Awesome. I'm in.

Herm- big smooch!

Steelerfanjason- 1. Big welcome. 2. Nice name!

in8girl- how long with PF? are you r.i.c.e-ing (personally i found the compression part most helpful) what about gastroc soleus stretching? Should you be running? What about some rest? Or at least change modalities and not run?

I don't have time to read the articles, but I've read Jeff's, Proles, and Mason A's responses. I missed the Infamous Number 6, but do want to point out it wasn't Billy in Iraq. Lacking the content, I'll leave it be.

With respect to Science, here we are again. For me, I tend to default to pragmatic definitions for everything. What do we want from science? On some level, is it not certainty about how the world works?

Yet, Science is not in the business of delivering certainty. As Jeff points out, it is not inconceivable that Newton's Laws of Motion are not scheduled to expire in 50 years. There is no reason to believe this, but also no means by which to paint it as impossible. Certainly, from what I read, the speed of light was experimentally poorly behaved, until it was fixed by fiat back in the 70's.

For my own purposes then, I distinguish between Myth and Science. Myth is not something that is not true, but something that by definition is unscientific. Materialism, as a doctrine, is a very understandable extrapolation from the emotional need for certainty about basic aspects of reality. So is Christianity. Neither, however, can be tested empirically, at least currently.

Which brings me to my own view on what Science, at root, is: it is a discipline characterized by communicability. What did Newton do? He provided a system by which cannon trajectories could be calculated very accurately in China, Japan, and any other nation, speaking any other language, that used them.

The point of falsifiability, to me, is that once I tell you how you can find out if I'm wrong in my ideas, then anyone anywhere can do the tests. And if no one anywhere is able to falsify them, then we have in fact replicated, successfully, an experimental hypothesis.

I have communicated an idea via empirical means. We now share an idea which does not depend on our cultures, religious beliefs, backgrounds, or anything else.

Science is a unifying agent to precisely the extent, in my view, that every prediction made has within it the seeds of its own destruction. The moment you have a set of ideas which cannot be overturned, which depend on faith, you have broken the chain. You have introduced the subjective, and reintroduced cultural and other factors.

Look at the Anthropogenic Global Warming. The duration of the test is 50-100 years, and the early tests--like predictions of massive warming made 10 years ago--have failed. The Earth is cooling. The Hockey Stick is flattening out, and now trending down.

So who are the people who, subjectively, WANT to believe in this? Those who feel oil is dirty, Gaia must somehow be in danger, and whose other forms of meaningful engagement have been muted by their dismissive disregard for their own traditional cultural forms.

The divide here is the necessary result of incommunicable ideas, which are perforce, by definition, unscientific.

Hopefully that makes some sense.

BTW I shaved with Occam's Razor this morning. It was surprisingly simple.

Couldn't resist. Nerd humor.

#80
I am in Canada...would like to be a nurse in the military....why do you ask?

S'MORE - We love you - say whatever is on your mind!

Oh, I had some great advice today: "In good eating, think in quality, rather than calories"

For Jeff, specifically regarding post #67

This week you scold Prole for her misquoting you and forming her own conclusions about your beliefs. I've been busy with exams as finals are approaching and now that I have some time, would like to address your post, and its similar misrepresentations of my beliefs from our discussions regarding the scientific method, etc.

You Wrote:
"Two scientists independently discover a pattern in the background radiation, and build a model that predicts that it has a structure several billion light years deep, a depth that could be measured with an interferometer of several Astronomical Units. The experiment is done by satellite, and the prediction confirmed. The scientist on the East Coast subjected his work to extensive peer review. The scientist on the West Coast relied on no peer review whatsoever."

Reply:
Is the model developed by both scientists the same, or do they reach the same conclusion from different models?
Do the scientists use instruments which have been been proven to make valid measurements of what they are intended to measure?

If in both cases your answer is yes, then perhaps as you would argue, peer review is not as important. However, I think that part of the importance of peer review that you fail to acknowledge is the search for faults in the investigator's logic/reasoning/conclusions and/or faults in the design of the experiment.

You Wrote:
"Let’s say that peer review came into vogue with professional journals in 1800. Why do you hold that the work of Galileo and Newton are not science?"

Reply:
I never stated that their work was not science nor did I state that peer review was necessary for something to be considered science. Instead I stated that peer review can add to the validity of science by a group of individuals with some depth of knowledge regarding the field of the experiment validating the experimental model and the conclusions drawn from it.

You Wrote:
"If your objection to fossil fuels is solely CO2 emissions, isn’t that based on the AGW model? Is it not true that the AGW model is false, and that CO2 is nothing more than a greening agent even at concentrations 20 times as now? And is there any rational objection to nuclear power generation other than manmade obstacles to its installation and waste disposal?"

Reply:
My objections is not solely based on CO2 emissions. It includes particulates and other byproducts of our combustion plants which are detrimental to the health of human populations as well as the environment. In regards to AGW, you seem as adamant in preaching that it has been proven false as the proponents seem in preaching it has been proven true. In either case I don't believe the facts have been "proven" in one way or the other. I agree with you that nuclear power is a feasible alternative and that much of the resistance to nuclear power is nothing more than ignorance of the technology and fear born of that ignorance.

You Wrote:
"For Matt and the IDers, scientific theories are highly successful models. So Matt’s position might be fairly stated that he believes models are validated by acceptance."

Reply:
I would hardly consider myself an "IDer" and to simplistically characterize and misrepresent MY position from YOUR point of view is in direct contradiction to YOUR chastising of Prole's post earlier today. But on to the point, NO a model is not validated by acceptance nor is a theory, they are validated through experiment.

You Wrote:
"One scientist might discover a vaccine against Alzheimer’s. It will stand as a great scientific achievement long before it can be peer-reviewed, published, subject to clinical trials, and marketed."

Reply:
You're right, it is a great achievement before any of these things are possible. However, this doesn't automatically imply that therefore all of the other stages are irrelevant or stand as impediments to the discovery. They simply serve as further evidence that the discovery is true, that it was not faked or the data manipulated in some manner to arrive at the desired result. They may take time to do this, but they are nonetheless an important part of the procedure. After all, without the clinical trials there would be no substantive evidence that the hypothetical vaccine did not cause more problems or exacerbate other problems in patients.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply,
Matt

Can anyone elaborate on the burpee challenge? What it is...and when can i start?

Correction of my Post above #117

Upon further reviewing last weeks discussion I did state that peer review was "necessary but not sufficient." So I suppose I should be chastised for using a weak model and improper language to express my position. My belief is more accurately represented in the above post and holds that peer review serves as a valuable tool of substantiating a scientist's claims and the method/model used to obtain them.

Back squats
250 x 12 (pr)

AMRAP in 15 of
5 HSPU
10 Pull ups
15 Wall Ball

7 rounds + HSPU + Pull ups + 5 wall ball

CFSB: squat 3 x 225, 245,245,250,255; then 15,12,9 pullups, 2 pood kb swings,dips,all with 25# backpack, 9:01. This program is kickin' ma culo!

Nick #107,

You might get me to agree that all paradigms are destroyed, or at least damaged. I'm not quick to accept that they self-destruct.

The Standard Model of cosmology always managed to pique my skepticism for two reasons. One is that the model that says the red shift is a Doppler effect has no corroboration (validation). This was motivation for the “tired light” conjectures. The vote is in: Doppler 100%, tired light 0%, science abstaining. Second was that singularities are found only in math, never in nature. The Standard Model extrapolates via mathematics from measurements that are never infinite nor infinitesimal to the Big Bang and singular black holes. I'm not saying any of this was wrong, just not up to the full rigors of science.

Now the Standard Model has required the addition of first dark matter and then dark energy, and not in negligible amounts. The existence of these dark entities all by themselves is but a conjecture. Einstein predicted dark energy in 1917, then regretted it. He voted for dark energy before he voted against it.

These dark entities are not observables, but inferences. Being not observable, they are not measurable, and not fact. If they are assumed as part of the Standard Model for whatever it might predict, then the Standard Model contains black art, magic, or supernaturals. This violates an axiom for science, one I find essential, and moves the Standard Model outside of science.

Better the Standard Model should be turned inside out, so to predict dark matter and dark energy. In some writings that is so. Cosmologists predict not just the dark existences, but a measurable phenomenon or two that would confirm those existences. As it stands, the Standard Model is a hypothesis, awaiting promotion to a theory when those measurements are made and the predictions validated. If they don't pan out, demotion to a conjecture might be next to await the design of new predictions and experiments.

I don't want to pretend that cosmology is my field, but science modeling is. My favorite cosmologist is Ned Wright, and I rely on and generally trust, but from time to time verify, his very excellent online tutorial. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm. Still, I don't think I'm going to be snowed by scientific error. I balk at every “(most) scientists believe” as I do at every “superior species”.

I fear where that part of science called the Standard Model might be headed. Is it going to get tangled up in String Theory (better String Conjecture)? Or is it going to be put on a scientifically sound footing?

i knew the bad mood was for something!!!...i'm SICK damn high temperature fever, nauseas terrible headache my entire body hurts...i don't think i'll be ready for tomorrow....big hugs side hugs for everyone

CROSSFIT = train hard with your friends

DAMN i feel terrible right now...i'll take an overdosis of c vitamine

guys, ladies i'm honored to be part of this commontes board with such a high quality of human beens

BIG HUGS again s'more will take a nap

I forgot...I really don't know what's happend with Herm but Mr. Thompson we are not here to fight maeby you take bad the word from Herm but we know him and i know he had no bad intentions...besides that i saw that he regreat as a gentelman that HE IS

Deadlift
5 x 265
5 x 275
5 x 285
21 x 205

21-15-9 reps for time of:
KBS (1.75 Pood)(wish I had a 2 pood)
GHD Situps
Burpees

7:09 Killer!

Has anyone gained significant weight since doing Crossfit? I have been following the WODS for about 4 months and I have put on about 9-10 lbs.

3 rounds of
45pound DB SDHP 50
21 burpees
400m treadmill.

18.32

Did Saturday's WOD...makeup
WU & Muscle Up progression
Seven rounds for time of:
95 pound Sumo-deadlift high-pull, 10 reps
10 Ring dips
10:15...SDHP form OK,ring dips slowed me up.

RicT

s'more-
Oh no man! That doesn't sound too good at all my friend! My little brother was out for like a week with the same symptoms. Take good care of yourself and get plenty of rest! Kick that cold's a$$!!

Herm-
I think we all know you're a top of the line kinda guy. So let's everyone get together, hug it out, and let this silly B.S. pass shall we :)

3 rounds for time of:
Row 500 meters
21 Burpees
Run 400 meters

As Rx'd 16:50

In addition to what Jeff said about the Standard Model, it is well known that Quantum Theory, as it now stands, is incompatible with General Relativity. Both work superlatively well in their own jurisdictions and scales, when it comes to predicting things. Neither has ever been experimentally falsified.

My own feeling, though--my own myth, in my own terms--is that we will either never connect the two, or General Relativity will have to go.

Non-locality as a physical phenomena has been experimentally verified. This means that faster than light communication of information is not only possible, but has been seen (to the extent anything to do with infinitesimal and evanscent small particles can be seen).

Since light is the defining constant of General Relativity--not space or time--this amounts, in my very limited understanding, to a prima facie falsification of a foundational element of the theory.

As I understand String "work" (how's that?), their basic effort is to retain light as a constant by positing added dimensions by means of which non-locality can be explained without rejecting General Relativity. This is my layperson's understanding, at any rate. I have not studied String Work, although I have read it is quite in vogue, very expensive, and has yielded NOTHING of practical value. There are a thousand ways to make the math work, but none of them can be tested.

This returns me to falsifiability. If an idea is correct, it can be mapped. I can say to anyone anywhere that if they mix baking soda and vinegar a reaction will ensue. We could call this a Law of chemistry. The word Law, to me, is infelicitous for the reason Jeff mentions, that it smacks of Deism, but I think the alternatives are likely worse.

The foundational discovery of Newton was that the world could be described and predicted with math. Math is still the purest form of science, in that it knows no language barriers. At the same time, that math must always refer to something people can see, or it, too, is "chewing gum for the mind."

In my own view, the sole task of peer reviewers should be to ask two questions: What is the claim being made; and if it were wrong, how would we know?

No amount of effort in other directions is useful. If experimental setups are evaluated, it should solely be concerned with whether or not they answer the question.

Again, with AGW as the paradigmatic example: other than waiting 100 years, how would we know if the IPCC were wrong? They didn't predict the oceans cooling. Their models can't replicate the known weather patterns of the Earth. They make large quantities of unjustifiable assumptions, as Jeff points out ad nauseum (it makes both of us sick).

Surely if their predictions fail, their models are wrong? Surely if their models fail to account for very well known, measurable, and relevant phenomena, they are wrong?

These ideas are based on faith, and thus are no more communicable that a personal mystical experience received on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. This does not mean they are wrong. It means they are dealing in the realm of the mythic, not the scientific.

Overall, I think the two articles today were pretty solid -- even if several sections in each should be "mentally pruned" away. No author is infallible, so all authors must be critically read at all times. More importantly, upon finding an error the entire work (or the author) should not be dismissed or discredited outright.

The latter half of the 26 page "On The Nature of Science" begins to lose its objectivity, as mentioned in the 3 page refutation by Courtney et al. Still, Jennings presents a strong, historical summary of the nature of science.

At the same time, the dismissal of Occam's Razor as a scientific tool by Courtney et al was not substantiated or convincing. Nor were their closing paragraphs. I will, however, post a quote from the middle of their paper as I think they hit the nail right on its head:

"At this point, is science really a powerful, objective epistemology for exploring natural law, or have we merely replaced one set of authorities (the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) with another (the scientists of the 21st century)?

We must not replace experimental repeatability with peer-reviewed observations as the ultimate arbiter of scientific validity. Only repeatable experimental results qualify as scientific observations."

just read an interesting article on T-nation thought I'd share.

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_investigative/the_truth_about_crossfit

Jeff,

I must say I am much less a cosmologist than you.

From my perspective I view most of what you perceive to be "self destruction" as natural parts of the process. I believe we are polarizing on the peer review thing.

The fact that singularities are mathematically required but not observed is exciting. Could be we find one... could be a new mathematics is required to adequately describe time space(zero is an interesting concept)... could be that this is the lynch pin that take the entire works down as a new and better model is developed. Such a model doesn't appear to be anywhere in sight though.

The fact that a very complex model has loose ends, dark matter, background radiation, doppler shifts and other assorted black magic at some spots to patch it together... is also exciting... check out this whole raft of open source scientists all bantering back and forth positing, digesting and rebuting... "uploading the latest patch" to "compile the universe"(if you will)... what an amazing bunch of talent! The Greeks would be soooo jealous -- as its an absolutely incredible system(post-modernity not withstanding)!

I thought maybe you were hinting at recent(so-called) lab results. Apparently there is a speed faster than light... I'll call it last Thursday speed... if the recent results are good(doubtful as Jennings notes recent results are rarely good). Relativity could in fact be very ready to g(r)o(w).

Me and two of my friends made up a WOD today because we had access to equipment we normally don't, and took rest days yesterday. I'd suggest you try it if you ever need a workout or creativity. It was a killer.

5 Rounds for time:
Row 500m(Sub burpees or SDHPs)
15 Deadlifts 155 LB (That's the weight I chose, we all chose something different)
25 Wall ball shots, 20 LB ball.

I'm dead. Awesome workout.

M/39/6'3"/256#

Active Rest Day for me...still feel guilty from missing so many WOD's before last week.

WOD:
2000 single under jump ropes
21-18-15-12-9-6-3
Push-ups
Squats
Total time: 26:12

Cool Down
21-15-9
Tuck jumps
Single leg lunges each side

It's cool reading the rest day stuff. I never weigh in, my brain is just not fit enough to post, but reading is cool and I learn a ton. Jeff G must have a ten pound head :>)

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

Mason A #111

Your explanation: " 'Science' then, is merely a label for the subset of information which has passed through the BKM for obtaining reliable, practical information." Very clear.

You won't mind, I hope, if I ask you about this:

"Science, then, is a way of filtering information. The internal mechanism, of course, is the scientific method. This method is important because it is the actual process which filters out unreliable, impractical information."

I think you might have 'misspoke' (which is easy to do in this format) when you said that "science...is a way of filtering information." I think you meant that science is the information that remains (or is in a sense created) after the activity of "filtering", i.e., employing the BKM/scientific method.

Now, at my own risk, I would like to raise a point that Jeff and I might agree on, that is, that the BKM is less important than the quality of the information that we identify as practically useful, reliable etc. To me it seems that you are saying that science is what the scientific method produces. That is fine, understand that I do not think that to be a bad account of what science is, it may be the best account. But, and this is a question Jeff raised last day (I think), what if two people present papers that provide identical information, one based on the BKM, and one based on something not up to BKM standards, is there anything non-scientific about the non-BKM information?

It seems to me that your account makes science (filtered information) the result of scientific method, which is essentially a pedagogical recipe. That isn't a criticism of your account. What is clear about your account is that you distinctly demarcate the content/information of science, with the procedures/BKMs of the scientific method. The method produces the content, and as I remarked las rest day, the 'truth' of the content is the happy result of it having been created by the employing the method.

If I could bring jacksbadassgoat #112 ("jbag" - unfortunate shortform) in at this point, and hopefully retain the attention of Mason A a little longer....

I think jbag's reading of Jeff may be correct, and I think that this reading points to the notion that what differentiates science from rigorous common sense (I mean intelligent, dogged, investigative reasoning that could be practiced by a barber or a historian or a wheelwright) is....method. As jbag put it "Scientific thought would reach the same hypothesis [as common sense], but then would test the prediction through experimentation to confirm its truth," as Mason A put it: "science is...the subset of information...which has passed through the...BKM..."

Barry, this is what distinguishes "science" from "myth", and the "scientific" from the "mythic". For the practitioner of science there is no set of scientific content that is essential, it is only the method that is essential, and the method, the BKM, is provisional, the best at that time. For the believer in myth, the content is essential. It matters very much whether the myth is about a snake in a garden, a resurrection, a great sea turtle, a quest in the underworld. This is because myth is about explaining the world in a way that provides a collective identity to those who share a belief in a particular mythic explanation. In a way myth is practical, socially and psychologically - it provides material for forging individual and collective identities, but it is not practical in the sense of increasing predictive ability or control over the physical world. Sure, science may unite some people, and may form a large part of any given person's identity, but it is not directed at these social and personal attributes of human beings. The scientific method, the BKM, is directed at understanding the physical universe, and the other things are a by-product. The specific content of science is most important to some kinds of religious people, because they view science as an alternative myth, a challenging one. To the scientifically minded person, the content of science (i.e., Darwinian or Copernican) are not important in and of themselves, it is what they do that is important. When Darwin's theory is improved, or tweaked, or abandoned etc., scientists will (and do) celebrate. It is not the same when one myth replaces another - throughout history this usually occurs through violence or social calamity.

This is not to say that myth is not important or useful, but it is to say it is something different than the BKM.

58/M/195
CFWU
3x5 Back Squat - 185, 195, 200
500m row 1:48.0
'Fran' 9:28 PR
Ring Dips 19 - 12

The cert at Alamo CrossFit this past weekend was top notch! I learned a ton and am sore as hell...great combo! Drew, Chuck, Jon, Jolie, Curtis...you guys were informative and inspirational. I hope to be able to use all those skills at the games this summer....or at least at the qualifier :) As always...thank you Alamo CrossFit...Frick, Bryan and Eric...love you guys!

m/20/5'8/158

made up cindy from last week..
22 rounds + 5 pull ups 10 push ups

Just a random comment on Rest Days:

And so in gymnastics, if a man takes violent exercise and is a great feeder, and the reverse of a great student of music and philosophy, at first the high condition of his body fills him with pride and spirit, and he becomes twice the man that he was.

And what happens? if he do nothing else, and holds no converse with the Muses, does not even that intelligence which there may be in him, having no taste of any sort of learning or enquiry or thought or culture, grow feeble and dull and blind, his mind never waking up or receiving nourishment and his senses not being purged of their mists?

And he ends by becoming a hater of philosophy, uncivilized, never using the weapon of persuasion,—he is like a wild beast, all violence and fierceness, and knows no other way of dealing; and he lives in all ignorance and evil conditions, and has no sense of propriety and grace.

And as there are two principles of human nature, one the spirited and the other the philosophical, some God, as I should say, has given mankind two arts answering to them (and only indirectly to the soul and body), in order that these two principles (like the strings of an instrument) may be relaxed or drawn tighter until they are duly harmonized.

-The Republic, Book III, 410, Jowett

Matt Schmita #117, #119,

Your posts were a bit complex to answer categorically. However, I see a thread running through your defense of peer review, and perhaps repeatability and careful experimentation, too. It leads to this question: Would you agree that the purpose of each of these factors is to satisfy other people that what the scientist has claimed for his model is true and valid?

That would not be the same as saying that what has been claimed is science, given that all three factors are completed to everyone else's satisfaction. These tests of satisfaction leave science undefined.

One question is whether what the scientist has done is truly science. The other question is whether what he claims to have done satisfies critics. The first is objective; the second is subjective. The first is measurable; the second exists only in the minds of humans. The second question asks whether everyone is satisfied that the answer to the first question is yes.

You ought to be able to do this thought experiment. Choose some model or field you consider certainly not science, and show that it can be subjected to successful peer review, repeatability, and careful handling. I've always liked stock market analysis, astrology, and parapsychology for this purpose.

More than a thought experiment, I can prove that the Global Climate Models that predict Anthropogenic Global Warming are falsified for omission of several real processes that they allege, or actually do, determine climate, yet the GCMs substantially meet the three prong quality factors.

Jeff,

I think in the end I'm left only to conclude that while our dialog has touched on the same subjects, our purpose was unrelated. It seems that your discourse has been solely based in the search for an accurate and succinct definition of science. I agree with you that science may occur without peer review, repeatability, or careful and valid design and implementation of experiments. I was arguing that instead of regarding them as unnecessary and thus counterproductive to the field of science, because they aren't necessarily needed for science's raw definition, but instead to regard them as useful tools that aid scientists in the pursuit of further knowledge, or perhaps more accurately, predictive power of the world in which we live. If you still cannot see the merit in that argument then perhaps we're left only with agree to disagree.

Mat Schmitz #145:

We have reached substantial agreement through your first two sentences, but not in the next. I don't regard the three quality factors “as unnecessary and thus counterproductive to the field of science”, where the field of science means as science is practiced today in academe. I have observed in fields where industrial science practices, it occupies more than three times the number of scientists (that many of the PhDs and essentially all the BSs and MSs) and conducts science at over triple the pace of the academic world, substituting other tests for peer review, repeatability, and academic carefulness.

I imagine that the pioneer greats in science were substantially loners. They were without peers on four counts: the field was nearly empty, they were special in their intellectual capacities, they were fastidious in their work, and great ideas have to originate somewhere in one brain. The odds are that a hundred times as many such lone scientists exist today than when the population of Earth was a tenth or less, a factor of 10 for population, and a factor of 10 as a placeholder for the access to information. The quality control mechanisms in place for the factories of science are keep out signs for the next Galileo, Isaac Newton, or Thomas Edison.

You proposed an 8 step model for science at comment #113. Can this model segregate nonscience from science? Parapsychology from physics? GCMs and the Standard Model from Newtonian Mechanics? Can it advise the Linus Paulings, the Carl Sagans, the Bertrand Russells, the Fleischman & Ponses, the Richard Dawkins, the Davis & Kenyons (Of Pandas and People) when, where, and how they stepped over the line?

Mason A #133,

You championed the following from the Courtneys:

>> "At this point, is science really a powerful, objective epistemology for exploring natural law, or have we merely replaced one set of authorities (the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) with another (the scientists of the 21st century)?

>> We must not replace experimental repeatability with peer-reviewed observations as the ultimate arbiter of scientific validity. Only repeatable experimental results qualify as scientific observations."

This passage rests on the Courtneys' axioms of the existence and immutability of natural law. This is supercharged with religious overtones, and defensive of them.

In the Courtneys' model, science is just about discovery. It is instead about discovery and about creativity - discovery of facts and creativity of models. Validity in science rests on its demonstrated predictive power, and on that alone. Validity is not, as the Courtneys' recognize, demonstrated by peer review. Nor as they do claim, does it arise from repeatability as the ultimate arbiter. The ultimate arbiter is predictive power - if and only if. Predictive power trumps all the other suggestions.

We take as an axiom that the Real World exists, that it has physical properties, and that it is changing, but neither that it has natural laws nor that it is immutable. All the laws in science, all the models, without exception, are the creations of man. Scientists are authorities of a sort over these laws, but only by public demonstration.

Together, this is an elementary concept in science literacy. It should be the minimum goal of the science strand in K-12 education.

With respect to myth, I am using it here in the same sense I used "metaphysical" earlier. Myth, very simply, is every story that is not science. ALL scientists have myths. I don't think we can exist without them, and so this is neither good or bad in and of itself. Where it becomes problematic is when a myth--which by definition is unfalsifiable--becomes dogmatics.

In its simplest form, dogmatism amounts to intellectual violence in defense of an idea or ideal one needs emotionally. When I say intellectual violence, I mean intellectual inconsistency, or hypocrisy.

If I posit that all men are granted by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, I am not a hypocrite or dogmatist to the extent that I act consistently with this ideal. This is a myth, and I would argue it is a useful myth, if one defines useful as working to increase qualitative human felicity.

However, if I claim that Truth is my only aim, and yet I consistently reject evidence solely on the basis that it is inconsistent with my personal beliefs, I am a dogmatist.

For example, consider the following story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090214/ts_nm/us_climate

The first paragraph reads: "The climate is heating up far faster than scientists had predicted, spurred by sharp increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries like China and India, a top climate scientist said on Saturday."

Now, in point of fact, the Earth is getting cooler. The oceans have cooled. 2008 was colder than 2007, which was colder than 2006--at least to the extent we can measure things like this (another issue in itself).

So why is he saying it is getting warmer? What is he ACTUALLY saying is that if their model is correct, and CO2 emissions last for decades, and that they are the primary Greenhouse Gas (manifestly untrue, by the way), THEN the Earth MUST be getting warmer.

These people are F*&(ing liars. It's that simple. Full Stop. Whether they are lying to themselves, or us, is irrelevant. They are not doing science.

Here is an example I came up with. Let's say I'm the King. My rule depends upon employing the best knight in the kingdom, as measured by his ability to unseat every other rider in the Kingdom from his horse in a jousting contest with clear rules. My hero currently is Galahad. I know he is the best, because he has gone up against every other rider in the kingdom and won. Yet, if he is ever unseated by someone else, then I will employ that new knight.

We have a simple process: if you are the best, then you cannot be unseated. The process by which jousting happens has clear rules, and everyone understands this. Any knight who claims superiority who refuses to engage in a jousting contest, is not a knight at all. He may or may not be superior, but has no claim whatsoever to Galahad's position. None. He can be ignored fully until he decides to play by the big boy rules.

The AGW folks are such people. They won't come joust. They won't open their models to the world to test, study, examine. They refuse to include the many known problems with their models into their models. They refuse, ultimately, to say "if x,y,z happens, then our models are wrong." For example, if Greenland starts freezing again, or CO2 levels drop at Mauna Loa, or ice sheets start forming in Montana. I'm not sure penguin colonies in Barbados would be sufficient.

Of course, I am offering my own hypothesis as to how this social system works. They can falsify it by offering concrete predictions in the near term (<10 years), and being honest about the results.

And as I stated last time, peer review is not the same as falsification. The only requirement to be scientific is to offer a clear idea, and means by which your idea can be disproven. Newton's Laws of motion, by the way, have never been proven. They have resisted falsification in countless millions of trials.

The notion of Law, though, remains a myth. It is unscientific, in a formal sense, although pragmatically no one expects the Laws of Motion to be repealed. If I'm understanding him, Jeff and I are in agreement on that, although he may not use my terms.

Barry Cooper #148,

Truth, beauty, justice, and pleasure are examples of things outside the realm of science. But I wouldn't call them myths. Would you?

You say Newton's Laws have never been proven. Science doesn't use the term proof for its models. That is for mathematics and logic. In science, the test is validation - demonstration of predictive power, and ultimately (at the level of a law) demonstration to a known accuracy.

The laws of science are creations of man using his very limited mathematical abilities. The Real World is immeasurably more complex than our models, our senses, and our instruments. The Real World clusters into regions of observables, in time, in space, and at certain scales. And with enough constraints we have been able to model many of those regions successfully (usefully).

Combining these thoughts, neither logic nor mathematics can establish truth. In math, if the axioms fit some bit of the Real World, then certain consequences are inevitable by theorems. In logic, if the premises are true, than certain results are true by theorems. In logic, this is called “truth functionally implied”.

Nick #107:

As a post script to our observations on cosmology, here's a conjecture for the mill:

Dark energy causes the red shift.

Man, what a weekend. I'm sore but I want more! Andrew, Jon, Jolie, Kurt and Chuck (scientifically proven to be the worlds most powerful human being) thanks for a brilliant cert, you guys are awesome trainers and impressive athletes, I hope I can be as skilled as you all some day. I am now FULLY determined to find a place to get a box up and running so watch this space. p.s. Chuck, the filet was ALL THAT.

Yes, I would call truth, beauty, and the American Way myths. To be clear, I don't attach a pejorative sense to the word myth. I am merely trying to speak to their scientific value.

Ultimately, what I am trying to do is shrink what might be termed the bloated intellectual burocracy of Science, Inc. to a more practical size.

As fine a mind as von Neumann, studying the conclusions of Quantum Physics, concluded that the mind of the observer was only logical place where the quantum probability waves collapsed. From this, it follows that to some extent, in some unknown way, Observers create the observed.

Now, this is not proven, and I cannot see how this idea could be falsified. To do so, we would need to find the proverbial tree in the forest falling, that no one hears. If no one can hear it, then by definition it is beyond our knowing. Even instruments have to be read by humans.

Much that passes for "Science", like Darwinism and Materialism (my two favorite targets) are constantly conflated not just with Reason and Truth, but the empirical mindset period.

Now, obviously every species has an evolutionary path over time. This is obvious. Equally obvious is the fact that when I hit my head on something, it hurts.

But ultimately, small errors at the source of a large ideational structure lead to large problems. I am merely trying to point, formally, to these problems.

Every myth may be true, but to the extent that they ARE myths, this can never be reduced to a form which is communicable.

Take CrossFit. Any nation on Earth could take our programming, and perform tests. We would not have to involved. We would not even have to know it was going on.

Perhaps this has already happened.

The results will not vary, depending on who is doing the testing. The variable, in fitness, is how you define fitness.

Now, pre-CrossFit, other organizations defined every parameter reductively, as a minimal standard in certain movements held to offer general applicability, like running, pushups, pullups, and situps.

This reflects a broader problem within the realm of science, in that the focus is on WHY you make a statement, and not the verifiability of that statement. As I said above, the two things necessary to science are a: clear statement, and a means by which that statement might be disproven.

What too many people focus on--what "peers" focus on--is the WHY of the statement. What basis could someone have for saying, x,y,z? For example, what (financial, political) motivation might someone have for criticizing the AGW conjecture? If one studies the IPCC reactions (mostly non-reactions) to manifestly valid objections, this process is clear.

CrossFit is the result of what might be termed an Island hopping strategy. Coach Glassman felt no need to justify each and every step he made. He simply tried things that made intuitive sense to him, and watched what happened.

Hypothesis: functional movements, varied often, done at high intensity, ought to lead to high work capacity across broad time and modal domains.

This is the clear statement. What would falsify it would be if this system in fact did NOT lead to such adaptations.

Thus, CrossFit is science, even if we didn't justify each and every step on a detailed biochemical level.

Where we are at, now, I think, is developing the mix of work, type of work, organization of work, and types and quantities of Rest that optimize work adaptations. In this sense, as I understand it, the CrossFit Games this year are intended to falsify all but a few programming systems.

That's enough for now.

It's worth pointing out, I think, that people used to be murdered for dissent from religious dogma. In 15th Century England, for example, if you publicly spoke out against the Roman Catholic Church, you had a good chance of being burnt at the stake.

Now, let us say, for example, that the issue at hand was the Baptism of infants (the Catholic policy) versus the Baptism of adults (a later Protestant innovation). What would have proven to both parties that one or the other was right? Is this not a system where the correctness of one's views is only verified upon death, if then?

Since neither party can speak of a means by which a truth might be discerned in a manner both will agree to, force is the necessary judge. Might makes right. And history is full of this.

The hope, therefore, of Science, for many, is the cessation of these sorts of pointless disputes. One myth can be compared to another only through persuasion and force. Ideas themselves can only acquire persuasive power through the power of the individuals arguing for them.

Science, as a system whereby truths can be communicated which are the same for all people, which can be seen by all people, has seemed for many to be the best answer to man's quest for Meaning and Reality.

And in pinning these hopes on this system, much has been added that was unnecessary and actually contrary to this intent. Science was never intended to destroy religion. It was intended to put it in its place. And yet it has metastasized into a dogmatic system whereby unfalsifiable claims are asserted with Pontifical self righteousness, backed by credible threats of force in all too many cases. Remember, Communism was "scientific socialism", at least according to Barack Obama, Sr.

In all realms of human activity you see ebbs and flows, from one unjustifiable extreme to another unjustifiable extreme. Reason, in my view, is the tool we use to manage this. Reason is a tool used in science, but also in human life more generally. Reason is much larger than science, and can speak to things that are properly beyond the domain of honest scientists, like the purpose of life.

#139 Prole

You are right that precision in this medium is difficult. I trimmed down my post which made a little interpretation necessary to fill the gaps, but I think you took away from it exactly what I intended when you rephrased it as:

“science is the information that remains (or is in a sense created) after the activity of "filtering", i.e., employing the BKM/scientific method.”

To answer your question “is there anything non-scientific about the non-BKM information?” I would say yes, but that’s not a bad thing. There are many ways to filter information of which science is only one. As phrased above, science is only a label for a subset of information; it is only a means to an end and not an end itself. Recall the “why’ of science. Information is useful when it can be used to improve our lives. There is nothing inherently useful about any particular subset of information – it is only in its ability to reliably apply to our practical lives that it becomes useful.

Non-scientific information should not be thought of with derision--only information which disguises itself as scientific should be viewed with derision--for the same reasons as any other kind of fraud.

Non-scientific information can be incredibly useful. When lost in a new neighborhood, we can use flat maps written on napkins to navigate an oblate spheroid (earth). We trust the bartender’s directions because presumably he lives in the neighborhood – there is nothing scientific about it. Anything which helps you move closer to the truth can be useful.

Science is just one of many ways to get there, and it is only valued highly because it is a collection of the best known methods.

Some of you may enjoy this: http://www.secondattention.org/articles/zero_point.asp

Many do not know this, but the formula F=MA can be DERIVED using the Electromagnetic Zero Point Field postulated in Quantum Physics. Mass, it appears in this formulation, is in effect an illusion, created by drag on an energy field we cannot perceive.

Actually, by way of comparison, here is a short article on the Higgs Boson, the so-called God Particle: http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue10/Physics_10.htm

Discovery of this field (read the article, and you will see the word field is more appropriate) will get a Nobel Prize for someone, in all likelihood.

For me to research later is the relationship of the Higgs Field to the Zero Point Field. If I had to guess, I would suspect that the latter smacked too much of religion, even though the Higgs Boson was labelled the "God Particle".

My intuitive sense, based on my understanding of psychology and the politics of physics, is that the word God is used ironically, and that their hope is a fully consistent materialism.

To be clear, the Zero Point FIELD is a field in every sense, which fills the entire universe. The Higgs Boson, in contrast, appears to be something that in some respects can be called a particle (another name for a local field), and thus compatible with the existence of local fields as the primary cosmological reality.

I also have the feeling that were I to devote as much time to this as I have AGW, I would be equally angry.

#147 Jeff

What I like most about Courtney’s passage was the parallel they drew between two dominate authorities of their time. The knowledge of the Middle Age Catholic Church was based on divine revelation, and had no predicative power. It was viewed by the populace as authoritative because of the position of church leaders, and made widespread by their consensus. Likewise, the scientists of the 21st century, in my mind, have lost their predictive power. They are no longer practicing science as it was or is intended. There is little emphasis on repeatability--all the emphasis has shifted to peer consensus. The only reason the general public believes the scientific consensus over any other is their position – not the predictive power of their models – and not unlike the Catholic Church of the middle ages.

If you compare middle age dogma to your personal perspective on AGW, what similarities do you find—both in terms of method of validation and predictive power?

As to your contention of the ultimate arbiter of science, I would say predictive power and repeatability go hand-in-hand.

A model cannot be said to make powerful (accurate) predictions if the results it predicts cannot be replicated, nor can repeatability occur if the predictions it states are inaccurate. In that sense, predictive power and repeatability are one in the same in terms of model validation. That is, they both comprise #8 (Retest) of the scientific method.

Mason,

I'll agree with that, especially the part about the Church. I want to be careful, though, about demonizing all scientists everywhere. The next generation of iPod's will be smaller and hold more. One could repeat examples almost infinitely. We are using Science in the developmetn of the CrossFit method.

Be that as it may, one other thought popped in my head: one of the most egregious errors any scientist can make is to confuse an abstraction for a fact. For example, the AGW folks use the well mixed conception of CO2 as a fact, not a conjecture, which is what it really is, and at that an intrinsically implausible or even ludicrous one.

The sleight of hand they are performing is positing physical processes which have never been measured as facts, then calling extrapolations from those facts hypotheses, if they are even that honest, which most are not.

In my own view, what you have are conjectures being inserted into models that are also conjectures. When one of the inputs they consider solid is altered, they alter their model accordingly--and proclaim the result as fact, as indicatd above--but in reality the rubber has never touched the road. These are models which alter the quantity of angels dancing on a pin, based on new inputs.

This is what has been called by people who knew about such things "The Big Lie". It's so enormous, and so many people are involved, that its extent is hard to see.

#148 Barry

It’s a bit of a digression, but as I am as interested in human rights as you and Jeff are about AGW, I thought I would respond to this:

“If I posit that all men are granted by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, I am not a hypocrite or dogmatist to the extent that I act consistently with this ideal. This is a myth, and I would argue it is a useful myth, if one defines useful as working to increase qualitative human felicity.”

Undoubtedly, the above myth holds an important truth. I believe the same truth falls out of our very nature of being human; a truth which can be made fully transparent without the need for mythical invocation.

The inalienable right of man is popularly paraphrased as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For brevity, I will refer to it as the inalienable right of man (IRM).

I believe the IRM can be derived from the law of identity: a living being is a living being. That is, living beings are only “living beings” for as long as they are alive.

The definition of humanity presupposes life. That is, to be human is, in part, to be alive. Humans, as with other living beings, exist as humans only as long as they remain alive. Life is sustained through a process of self-generated action. Humans must respire and metabolize. Among other things, in order to be “human,” they must sustain their own life through self-generated action.

A right, by definition, is a moral principle defining and sanctioning an individual's freedom of action in a social context. A man on a desert island needs no sanction of freedom, because nobody exists to infringe upon his will, and vice versa.

Social interaction exists only amongst living beings. As such, social interaction is possible if and only if living beings have the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action. Without this freedom, life--humanity itself--is absent, as is the concept of social interaction or the rights which define and sanction such interaction.

This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, then, must exist for all individuals in a social context. It is the right which necessarily makes all other rights possible. It is the inalienable right of man (IRM).

In a social context, freedom of action is violated only by means of physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. For every individual, the IRM specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action. To pursue the property which enables one to sustain their life, and the happiness which makes life worth living.

Consequently, the IRM imposes no restrictions or obligations on the actions of other individuals--only to abstain from violating their inalienable right of man (IRM).

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. Remember the Declaration of Independence: "and to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

One can read the Declaration as a short treatise on the sort of liberalism I like, which is to say a system of thought which works to maximize human freedom, while respecting common sense, and the plain historical fact that both nations and men are capable of evil when countervailing force is not available to defend against it.

You know, the same principles discussed here apply to the political world as well. History is our laboratory. History is little but successful and (largely) unsuccessful experiments.

In any complex system, you cannot isolate every variable, but in general it is possible to isolate certain elements as causing success or failure.

For example, what might we productively compare our current Stimulus program to? How about Germany under the National Socialists? Massive government expenditure; massive government interferance in private industry, with some segments owned outright; massive public works projects (and who, after all developed the "People's Car?); and an overarching effort to increase the dependence of the populace on the State.

Remember, John Maynard Keynes--Saint Stimulus--considered 1930's Germany a good exemplar of his ideas. And what happened? They had to invade other nations to make payroll.

Maybe not such a good idea after all-"Road to Serfdom" and all that.

I don't think there's really any serious question that legal protection of private property, legal protection of contracts, and free markets lead to prosperity. This conclusion is inescapable.

What prevents people from accepting this is their emotional need to feel good by using the Government to help people. Why they can't just give their fortunes to the poor baffles me. Actually, it doesn't, but that's an issue for another day.

For now, again: clear idea; means by which to falsify it. History, of course, is more ambiguous than a laboratory, but not as ambiguous as disingenuous and devious fools would have us believe.

The Rest Day Exercise is an exciting discourse On the Nature of Science by B.K. Jennings, PhD,
with a rebuttal by Amy and Michael Courtney PhDs.
and comments by Jeff Glassman and others.

I actually read B.K. Jennings' article three times. I love the comments on significant digits of (pi) .. from 3 in 1 Kings 7:23 to 3.141592653589793 with an old CDC mainframe that I used to 'hang tapes' for in the '80's. And this quote: "Science is the art of the appropriate approximation." I think Modeling is the art of choosing the appropriate approximation.

Barry Cooper #152,

Evolution is the name given to both a number of facts and to a scientific model, the latter built upon the former without any supernatural force. You concede the truth of the former. But what do you find wrong with the latter, other than the compulsory absence of a supernatural force?

Mason A ## 112, 114, 154:

You model science as a process instead of knowledge, and this process, which you refer to as BKM, you say is to filter something. I infer that that something always already exists in nature, that God put it there. Is this a correct interpretation?

You leave out the human creative part of science. You leave out scientific models and prediction. You place science in parallel with scripture. This seems to explain your insistence on repeatability.

Does your model lead to anything useful other than scorn for science? This would be my answer to Prole #139 re the importance of BKM. It is irrelevant to science as knowledge.

Barry Cooper #157,

Sometimes scientists insert conjectures into their models, and that seems to be what has happened with the standard cosmological model. But the well-mixed property of atmospheric CO2 is not an example.

The purpose of the well-mixed property is to make the CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa represent the globe. It is the inferred justification for the IPCC to calibrate the various CO2 records spread over the globe and in time so that they all agree. This is not acceptable scientific practice.

In order for CO2 to become well-mixed, it must remain in the atmosphere and not be immediately mixed in the atmosphere and absorbed in the oceans and other water. To make this happen, the IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean as being in equilibrium. This way the surface layer cannot absorb additional CO2 according to the physics of solubility until the CO2 sequestering processes have a chance to work. These processes take hundreds to many thousands of years, so in this manner the IPCC has created a bottleneck to CO2 transfer into the ocean.

Instead, the surface layer is far from a state of equilibrium. It has horizontal currents and vertical stirring driven by the wind, waves, tides, and the Coriolis effect, it has entrained air, variable thickness, and heat transfer in and out. Presumably the Global Climate Models do not mechanize solubility at all because that process is not included in the IPCC reports. The result is that the GCMs do not replicate the carbon cycle accurately, yet predict that man's CO2 emissions, one sixth of the ocean exchange, will cause a catastrophe. This is just one of several factors sufficient to demote GCMs to less than a conjecture, off the scale of science models.

The crowning observation about the well-mixed properties is that the IPCC admits that the North South gradient of CO2 is ten times that of the East West gradient. This implies that the EW gradient is measurable. It also implies that atmospheric CO2 is not well-mixed. Natural and manmade CO2 might be well-mixed in the atmosphere, but CO2 cannot be well-mixed in the atmosphere and have significant gradients. This is another fatal contradiction in the IPCC story.

Mason A #156:

You asked what similarities I might find if I were to “compare middle age dogma to [my] personal perspective on AGW”. I don't know what you're looking for, nor what you mean specifically by middle age dogma. But charging ahead, here are some similarities.

Both are stories that are the creative work of human minds. Both appeal to scriptures, holy or peer reviewed papers, accepted as authority by the second tier of apparatchiks. Both rely on the power of the state to arrest, to incarcerate, to try, and to seize property, one possessing police power including the power of capital punishment and the other conceded the power by treaty, statute and taxation. Both predict nothing that can be validated within a human life span. Both are inconsistent with the past. With some assumptions about middle age dogma, both contain contradictions and inconsistencies, and both are incomplete. Neither is science.

#163 Jeff

Science is a subset of knowledge. The scientific method is the process which defines that subset.

I am not leaving out human creativity, models, or predictions. All of these are essential components of the scientific method. From the list I provided, #3 (Form Hypothesis) requires human creativity. It is also the step in which a model, and its predictions are defined.

I think you misunderstand my intentions. I have the utmost respect for science, and scientific knowledge. I was attempting to illustrate how the current state of "science" as practiced in many disciplines today cannot be accurately labeled as science at all.

Would you label AGW as science? In post #165 you say no. How about Keynesian economics? USDA nutrition? These three disciplines directly impact hundreds of millions of people.

Look at the parallels you drew between the middle age clergy and AGW scientists. Climatology is not the only field of science that has reverted to middle age methods. I want a return to real science. Models which make accurate predictions. Models which provide us with reliable, practical information.

Jeff,

When I use the word "evolution", I mean some variant on Darwin's conception of "morphogenesis through random change coupled with random benefit".

I think it is about 90% right, perhaps 99% right, but that is the sort of damnation by faint praise that the dogmatic cannot abide.

I am willing to concede that matter became life, and life become more complex life. However, I differ from orthodox biologists in that it appears there is something about the universe that enables it to "learn". I believe that changes are organized holistically, by the entire organism, and reflected in the DNA code.

Michael Behe and others are correct, in my view, in pointing to the necessary linear nature of Darwinian evolutionary conceptions. If you are going to have a self assembling erector set, that assembles itself by chance, there is no provision for 5 sticks to placed in beneficial places at once, by chance, over and over.

The entire plausibility of the scheme resides in the notion that a 100 tumbler safe can be cracked one digit at a time. You get a mutation, then natural selection locks it in. You get another mutation, and natural selection locks it in.

However, in any of the many organs we can study where many of the individual parts only make sense--only, to be specific, produce a useful adaptation which COULD be locked in by Natural Selection in the posited linear fashion--within the context of the whole. This, of course, is the irreducible complexity of the Intelligent Design movement.

Now, their operative hypothesis is that all living beings were "designed". This is an acceptable hypothesis, but how would we falsify this? I don't see any means by which to do this. Therefore, ID is not science.

However, Richard Dawkin's competing RNA molecule conjecture, to explain the origin of life, is not science either. There is no way to test if this in fact is what happened.

I proposed in the last Rest Day discussion along these lines that if an organism could be induced into a systemic, spontaneous, real time mutation that was adaptive, this would falsify orthodox Darwinism. This would imply that the adaptation was effectively conscious, and purposive.

The eye, for example, may well have evolved in its entirety within one or several lifetimes of whatever animal it originated in. It is clearly beneficial, and clearly helpful to survival.

The implication, however, is that of a telos. According to my understanding of the facts, some sort of intentionality--or force which acts to the same effect--seems to be in play.

This of course runs counter to the notion of a self assembling tinker toy set, but only because it is fully nonsensical within a MATERIALISTIC mindset.

This is why, though, that I developed the formal perceptual chain I did. All observations made by humans are made from within mythical frameworks, which of course we perhaps ought to term paradigms.

We could learn more by inducing evolution--and in the process falsifying our dominant ideas--in one instance, than we have learned in the last 50 years of tracking DNA samples.

What we have been dealing with, until now, and like for the foreseeable future, is what might be termed "falsification by paradigm". This is similar to falsification by peer review, and related. In both cases, ideas are rejected not for lacking scientific merit (a clear hypothesis and associated falsification mechanism), but for lacking "credibility". Credibility may be essential for taking out loans, but not to be included in the scientific club.

I will add, finally, that there is no real use to the term "supernatural". Whatever exists-can be brought within our perception by some means--is natural. There are likely undiscovered animals at the bottom of the ocean. They are not for that reason supernatural.

Perhaps the neologism "supermaterialistic" might help clarify this. Or how about "superparadigmatic"?

No wonder I can't get a date. Still, I have more fun than a kid playing with blocks.

It occurs to me that nothing can be called empirical until it is measured. The act of measuring creates a piece of information that is communicable without subjectivity. This makes it crossculturally applicable. Printed circuit boards made in Asia obey the same rules of physics that ones made here do. This is an empirical observation.

Natural Selection, to the extent I can determine, cannot be measured. We see change over time. We can reconstruct the course of genetic alterations. However, this need not imply that such alterations were fully random.

Again, if we to bring, say, some mosquitoes into a lab, and put something mildly poisonous into their environment, and watch, they might well develop resistance much faster than chance alone might plausibly warrant. Then we could do it again with flies, then gnats.

Such a process, far from proving the dominant paradigm, would necessarily imply its incompleteness.

These are experiments that could actually be done.

I will reiterate as well that orthodox Darwinism rests firmly on a mechanistic, materialistic basis. The foundational underpinning of this "myth" is that all seen events have antecedants which are knowable at least in principle. Billiard balls do not move themselves.

This mindset is responsible, in my view, for the reductivism we see everywhere in the scientific world, for example in physical performance research that is well crafted, but doesn't really add anything useful.

The thought process there is that if all possible causitive processes are known, then they will pile on one another, resulting in a pyramid like structure from which the perfection of knowledge can be preached with perfect confidence.

And yet, God plays dice with the Universe. We know this too--certainly, it has been experimentally observed. This bothers a lot of people today, even as it bothered Einstein during his life.

BTW, Jeff you are quite right to call me out on calling the well-mixed idea a conjecture. The proper word is lie.

I knew that, but I got in a hurry, so I allowed myself to get distracted by the larger point I was trying to make.

I will add that a lie in science bears roughly the same relation as poop does to soup. It doesn't take much to make the whole thing unpalatable.

I attended the Crossfit Level 1 cert at Alamo Crossfit and I just want to say that I have never been more impressed. I've done a number of certs, continue eds for exercise, rehab, and nursing and this by far was the best certification I have ever done. All the trainers were encouraging, extremely knowledgeable, and in great Crossfit shape. I'm now Paleo Zoning it thanks to Jon! Thanks Andrew, Chuck, Jolie, Curtis, and Jon for giving us awesome information & thanks to Rick and Alamo Crossfit for being so great in hosting.

Thanks for a great experience!

#168 Barry

One interesting example of a favorable mutation resulting in speciation has occurred in the last century: the discovery of bacteria able to metabolize nylon:

"In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935."

"Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain. Other scientists were able to get the ability to generate the enzymes to transfer from the Flavobacterium strain to a strain of E. coli bacteria via a plasmid transfer."

That's very interesting. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. What we really don't know--and frankly I don't know how this would be calculated--is what the odds to chance are this would happen within a fully randomized framework. How many generations should it take, and how many DID it take? That would be the question. Those are not the sorts of questions most mainstream biologists ask, though.

I'll repeat a point I made last time: there is more--much more--to be learned from disproving/falsifying existing paradigms than by protecting them.

#172 Barry

In that absence of selection pressure, all genes have an equal probability of survival. It is only in the presence of "pressure," be it physical, sexual, environmental, or otherwise that the survival rate of a particular gene (mutation) is able to increase.

For example, if bacteria are living in a pond filled with abundant nutrients, almost all new genetic code (mutations) will survive--save for those which catastrophically impair the function of the bacterium. Because all genetic code in such a population has an equal rate of survival, new mutations can not propagate throughout the entire population. In effect, when everyone is on equal ground, nobody can get a leg up.

It is only in a situation of "pressure" such as the scarcity of resources that specific genes are able to propagate throughout a larger population.

Take the nylon-eating bacteria in my modern example. When scientists placed a population of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a Petri dish full of nutrients and let it reproduce for thousands of generations -- it mutated into a number of different strains as dictated by the average rate of mutation for DNA. If we singled out each bacterium under a microscope we might find a host of different characteristics (extra flagellum, increased size, etc) all of which may have no affect on the survival rate of the bacterium in that particular environment.

It is only when a selection pressure is introduced (such as removing all nutrients except for nylon) that allows for a particular gene (if present) to propagate through the whole population. In the example of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, out of the thousands of variants in the population, one particular gene enabled the bacteria to metabolize nylon. In an environment devoid of all nutrients except nylon, that particular gene held a much greater chance of survival than its peers. Thousands of already-present genes (mutations) were killed off as soon as the selection pressure was introduced, precisely because they were now detrimental to the survival of the bacterium. The result was a homogeneous population of bacteria containing a gene which enabled it to metabolize nylon.

This is important because it states that mutations do not necessarily arise after a pressure is introduced, although that is certainly possible.

This has been confirmed in other experiments, such as those with E. Coli where samples of a population were removed at various intervals. After 30,000 generations a unique trait was observed. Utilizing the various samples, it was found that only populations after a particular interval were able to evolve to achieve that same trait. The trait was not the result of a single-step mutation but rather a multi-step change resulting from a unique history of selection pressures. The earlier intervals that had not been exposed to those unique pressures were unable to evolve that specific trait.

A population of genes reflects the historical selection pressures that those genes experienced; for the very reason that all the genes which survived each "pressure" were able to propagate and form the current population. Given a long enough history, complex and intricate gene expressions can result. This is the concept of natural selection as I understand it.

Yes, that is the concept. Obviously, whenever any population of anything adapts to anything, you can say that genetic trait was already there. This is the received view. This is what most biologists agree happens.

What would be interesting to me would be if we mapped the genetic code of a given simple organism, exposed it to selective pressure, then looked to see how long it took for some one of the population to develop a gene that adapted to that pressure. Since we would have the genetic code, we could determine it was not already present.

What would add interesting context to this would also be to map the average rate of mutations in a given population. In order to have quick adaptations, you would have to have a lot of mutations, since the adaptability of a given mutation is fully random.

If you took something that did not mutate often, and which produced a large change in a short period of time, that would be good evidence.

I guess, as well, that the complexity of the change would be important too. I don't doubt that linear adaptations happen. But if we could find a complex, systemic adaptation happening quickly, that would be best of all.

This gets back to the old tornado assembling an airplane argument. In itself, it is a poor argument, because if it hadn't happened, we would not be here to talk about it. There could be Google worth of planets where life did not evolve, so statistics is of no use there.

However, in terms of real time evolution, statistics are useful. We can measure rates of genetic mutation, then measure rates of adaptation, and use statistical analysis to estimate percentage against chance.

My suspicion is that across a very wide number of samples, adaptation happen at much faster rates than would be posited by chance.

This would be my prediction. What would falsify it would be experiments that fail to show that effect.

Jeff (and others),

I would offer Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" as a sort of gateway drug to my way of viewing things. It is very rigorous for most of it, and he clearly understands the scientific method. The last bit is admittedly speculative, but he says as much.

And yet, at the end of the day, he comes out in favor of so-called "paranormal" phenomena. The simple fact is that research in this realm has progressed to a point where dedicated skeptics have been reduced to name-calling, and ignoring the main evidence.

This is absolutely contrary to the perception of most scientists, although it is perfectly congruent with the bulk of American public opinion.

It's a carefully written, useful book.

Barry Cooper #167,

May I try to steer your thinking on evolution a bit?

Mutation is an ongoing process, although each mutation is a discrete event. It happens in every possible stage of development. The vast majority are not successful, aborting at some point, and some just lie dormant in the phenotype. DNA stores a lot of junk, as far as we know. Some mutations just enrich the gene pool. At that, only half of the mutations that reach reproductive years can be transmitted sexually. For a variety to develop or speciation to take place, two similar recessive mutations must mate, or one dominant mutation must be passed. This must happen more than once, and moreover frequently enough for the phenotypes to find one another and mate. That resultant phenotype must be viable, meaning that it will on average produce more than two young during its reproductive years. This viability must be present at the first mating. If it is viable, then it could produce an infinite number of offspring. The chances of all this are not good on an individual basis, but the number of tries is like the number of stars.

So far, natural selection has played no role. Here's where I take a unique view. If the new, viable variety or species is in a niche that is not at capacity, then it and any other life occupying that identical niche, will increase in population until the niche is full. The niche is a geographically defined region with a finite but replenishable source of nutrients and shelter. When the niche is full, then and only then does natural selection begin. When full, a cap is created on the rate of growth of all populations. This is a mathematical necessity resulting from the definition of a niche. At capacity, the relative sizes of the populations vary so that the most prolific type under the circumstances will replace all the other types in the niche. The others which do not have another niche somewhere go extinct.

The types in a niche do not need even to be aware of other types. Individual fitness has nothing to do with this niche theory of evolution. It's all a reproduction race. Nor does the race go just to the numbers who achieve the greatest total reproductive years or litter sizes. In animals, individuals beyond reproductive years can increase survivability for the whole population through knowledge. Elephants are a fine example.

So in this model, it's not enough for mutation to create a viable type. Eventually, when its niche is full, it must be the most prolific, net.

Following a mass extinction, niches are left lightly populated or vacant. At this time, Earth or the slopes of Mt. St. Helen are a crucible for speciation. New types can flourish and improve their gene pool for robustness in reproduction and in survival against environmental changes. But when the niches begin to fill again, the lid is back on the pressure cooker of natural selection. Competition within each niche will weed out all the types but the most prolific.

During long periods of environmental stability, the species lose robustness. In a warm epoch, species can slough the gene to grow thick coats with no natural selection penalty. It's natural de-selection. Stability causes whole populations to become more specialized and their niches to narrow. Examples are creatures in the forest that live just within a thin strata below the canopy, and koala bears, which eat only one plant. As less robustness progresses, the severity of event to cause mass extinction lessens, meaning that a mass extinction becomes more probable as a stable period lengthens.

So what is happening is not that natural selection locks in a 100 digit combination one number at a time. Just to play with your analogy, after billions of random tries, scores of 10 digit viable varieties emerge. These enter the prolificity race in their niche, interbreeding to produce other varieties along the way. Whichever one develops the most prolific type, and has a mate selection mechanism to assure the type, will win. By the time the winner is declared, the combination might be up to 80 digits. The next 20 genes are variable in the gene pool, and convey robustness. As the environment stabilizes, that variability in the gene pool, that robustness, is lost. The species has become highly specialized within a narrow niche where all 100 digits are fixed.

If any locking in is done, it might be done by the niche and math. Natural Selection is not survival of the fittest, as Darwin erred to allow it to be called, but survival of the most prolific (net). But whether the niche or natural selection, it has no direction, no purpose. You'll find betterment of the species mentioned from time to time in biology texts. This is a scientific derailment, and an unjustified interference with religion.

This niche model like the rest of evolution is certainly not in accord with any scripture, but it is not in violation of religion. If you have faith that this God's plan, what science is suggesting here is that He has decided which mutations to effect and to find mates, and when to pretty much erase the disk and reboot. We can measure much of what God has done. And God can have no trouble with the numbers man invented. It's man who struggles with complexity.

I use the term supernatural for anything that can't be measured. Today, it fits the concepts of dark energy and dark matter. You can observe beauty and truth and justice, but you can't measure them. When Simon found Kristen McNamara “too homely for stardom”, the Arizona Republic said, “She's just a less obvious version of cute”. You may have faith in the soul, in life after death, in forces of good and evil, and in God's will. But if you could measure them, you wouldn't need the faith.

#174 Barry

That is an interesting hypothesis indeed. In what ways is it in conflict with current evolutionary theory? In my eyes, if validated, it would be to natural selection what Quantum mechanics was to Newtonian mechanics. It would not invalidate the theory, it would greatly expand upon it.

As demonstrated in the above experiments, mutation can occur both before and after the introduction of selection pressure. If there exists an active, “adaptive" response in addition to the well-documented statistical mutation presented above, that would be an exciting result indeed.

One could make an argument that human consciousness is an example of such an "adaptive" response if behavior is taken as a gene expression; even more to the point when including genetic engineering.

However, I cannot see how such a hypothesis would be at odds with the current theory of evolution or natural selection. If genes held the ability to actively respond to selection pressure, or to create organisms which could actively respond to such pressure, the formation of such traits would still be explained by the current model of statistical mutation.

One intuitive problem I have with such a hypothesis is what benefit would a gene have in facilitating its mutation into a different gene? That is, how would active, “adaptive” mutation increase the population of that particular gene? It might help the survival of the organism, but what interest does a gene have in the survival of an organism beyond increasing the chances of its own survival? The gene (like a human) wouldn’t “survive” if it was mutated into something else. It would kind of be like encouraging someone else to date your girlfriend. It only makes sense if you have some “end goal” in mind, a goal which would only be available with hind-sight. If anything, a gene should go to great lengths to avoid mutation. This explains the extremely high accuracy of DNA replication. In addition, if the relevant input is selection pressure, from a gene-level-view, it would be as inherently random as statistical mutation.

Our bodies and minds survive for what, 75-100 years? The genes in your body have been around for millions of years. Most of them are only along for the ride. It is easy to forget that they are the actual "organisms." We just happen to be a fun expression of their "desire" to survive.

Of course, with genetic engineering, the tables have begun to turn...

Jeff,

Thank you, that was useful. Part of my problem is that I am biased for two reasons. First, I have problems with the philosophical implications of Darwinism (or other variant of the basic idea) in terms of how it is received culturally. In my view, these ideas--regardless of the extent to which they possess merit in explaining the unexplainable--have had and continue to have culturally pernicious effects.

This has nothing to do with science.

Secondly, my intuitive sense is not just that they have deleterious effects, but that upon very close examination, some key details don't add up. Now, a close examination requires me to read more than I have. I am not ignorant, but do not know what I would need to know to make this critique first hand, versus parroting what I have read, which as you have likely surmised is what I have been doing.

Again, this has nothing to do with science.

There is only so much time in the day, and this will have to wait.

These sorts of interactions are enormously useful. I much prefer people pointing out the errors in my thinking, as it saves me the trouble of having to find them myself.

For now, my intuition will have to remain subjective, and uncommunicable.

Jeff #176,
Thanks for several interesting posts, I’ve enjoyed the thoughtful exchange between you, Barry and Mason et al.

If I may add a side note to that, an important part of contemporary evolutionary study isn’t so much focused on the often subtle differences in genetic code among diverse organisms. Quite the contrary, the really interesting work seems to be centered on trying to explain how we can share so many genes in common with other animals (often 90+%) and yet still have such a huge diversity in phenotypes among organisms.

This work seems to suggest that the variation has more to do with the timing and order that genes are turned on and off during embryological development (which is related to specific parts of the DNA) rather than just the actual genes that are present. Interactions between genes, as well as when individual genes are turned on or off, appear to be particularly important. For example, if you take the small cluster of cells responsible for controlling the development of the eye from a mammal embryo and place it in the wing of a moth, guess what happens: it forms an insect eye. The genes for making eyes in fruit flies and mammals are actually the same (as are a number of other important genes), and yet it is the interaction of this gene (or gene set) along with the collective activity of the other genes during embryological development that determines whether a multifaceted insect eye or a single lens mammal eye is produced. A number of similar experiments have confirmed this phenomenon for a number of organisms.

I find it interesting to think that organisms may already possess most of the genes needed to produce the range of phenotypes we see and that subtle changes in how they are expressed during development may be as important for producing adaptive traits as large scale or subtle long term alterations in the genetic code itself. It would seem logical that small changes in even one of the controlling genes that alter its affect on other groups of genes during embryonic development could have a major cascading affect down the chain, resulting in the expression of very different phenotypes from very small changes in genetic information. Right now, the search is on to identify and understand these “controlling” genes. This would seem to have significant implications for predicting rates of evolution. It also seems to have interesting implications for how communities of controlling genes and their hierarchy of activity are selected for, if indeed natural selection is a factor at all.

I attended the Lev1 cert course at Alamo CrossFit on the 14th & 15th. All the coaches done a wonderfull job coaching & motivating us. It was well worth the trip from Australia. Rick & the guys from Alamo were great hosts. Thanks guys..

RJ #179;

How many great works might Shakespeare have written, instead of the ones he did write, given that the Latin alphabet has 26 letters? Rap lyrics and his works share 100% of this alphabet. How many phonemes can one form in any particular language from its alphabet? How many words could be constructed, and how many are in the largest dictionary? How many sequences of words make sense, given the grammar and syntax of the language? How are the rules of grammar and syntax encoded in the language, and how many rules are there? Pretty soon we get into meter and rhyming, and logic, and we're still not up to rap and all its possible permutations and repetitions of four letter words for bodily functions and fluids.

We share 100% of the four letter DNA alphabet, the nucleotides ACGT, with all life. These code for only 20 amino acids, which we share in some proportion. We're still not up to genes which we share in abundance, much less chromosomes which we may not share at all.

The genes that cause sequencing and the genes that switch other genes on and off might be analogous to the rules of grammar and syntax somewhere in the middle of defining a phenotype. What would be surprising is a model in which they did not exist. A whole hierarchy of functions is necessary to create life. For God easy, for man difficult.

When the length of the code is unlimited, within some bounds of mere weight (it can't be infinite), with combinations and permutations we can encode for an unimaginable number genotypes, even an unimaginable number of viable genotypes within the self-reproducing domain of DNA.

You close with, “if indeed natural selection is a factor at all.” Of course, we rather have to imagine (model) that natural selection exists because it is not directly observable. But its existence is well bolstered by the observation of forced selection in husbandry. This is the dichotomy of basic science and technology.

Evolutionary biologists, the basic scientists, are just now modeling what men, the technologists, centuries before them had already practiced, and which Mendel and Darwin a century before had modeled. That reminds me of the 1978 Nobel Prize for physics, and all the hoopla that goes along with it, being heaped on Penzias and Wilson for their 1964 discovery confirming the 1946 prediction of a cosmic background radiation. That radiation had been known in engineering since the early '40s because it was a quantified, limiting factor in radar performance. Twenty years before its discovery in physics, it was a military secret in engineering.

The scientific method is a checklist, not an ordered recipe.

I thought about this a bit more, and I'm still not convinced that the niche idea explains things like the eye. It can explain diversity, in the sense that one dominant species is not in constant competition with every other species at all times.

However, for the eye to work, a number of components must be in place at the same time, for any of them to make sense. Michael Behe--who was an evolutionary biologist, if I'm not mistaken--brings up many examples of this, also including the cell itself, and flagella (if memory serves).

Within each niche, the progress must still be linear, so this point is not addressed.

Moreover, RJ brings up an interesting point. As last as the 1930's, the concept of biological fields was a dominant hypothesis. They would cut the leg off a salamander, and it would grow back. They would cut two legs off, let them start to grow back, then switch them. If done early, the front leg would be the front, and the back the back.

As RJ mentions, we see things like this all over.

Jeff indirectly supports something like ID in two places, when he references Shakespeare, and husbandry. Shakespeare, as a conscious agent, a designer, took 26 letters and created his works. They did not compile themselves. There was no monkey at a typewriter. And domesticated animals did not just happen, they were bred, consciously, by humans working to design better animals for food, protection, and to help with work.

To be clear, if we posit that "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny", which is to say that the growth process of an embryo from conception to maturation parallels in some way the actual evolutionary process, then monkeys are typing Shakespeare, in my view, every day all over the world. Miracles are happening that are statistically impossible, absent some sort of unseen organizing force like a field.

Take this quote from--what shall we call him, heretic? lunatic? counterbiologicalculture icon?--Rupert Sheldrake, you can see the problem. He was trained, I will add, as a biologist at Cambridge (which has rued his admission ever since, no doubt):

"If you analyze your arm or your leg, they have exactly the same genes, the same chemicals, the same bone cells, the same muscle cells. There's nothing in your arm or your leg that makes it an arm or a leg because of the chemicals in it; it's the way they're arranged. And the DNA can't explain that by itself. The genetic material is the same in all the cells and it's the same in the arm or the leg. It's a bit like having two houses in a suburban street, where the two houses are built using the same kinds of materials, but they're different shapes, because they have different architectural plans. And since the 1920s, a number of developmental biologists who study the development of form have been convinced that fields are necessary to explain this process. It's actually quite a mainstream idea in developmental biology.

http://www.alanmooresenhordocaos.hpg.ig.com.br/entrevistas04.htm

This link is worth examining as well. This medical doctor experimented with using electric currents to foster regeneration of lost limbs and other tissue. His intent, actually, was much the same as those using tissue from destroyed fetusses, and adult stem cells. As noted in the text, his funding was cut, and the research has apparently died on the vine:

http://www.newtreatments.org/doc.php/WisdomExperience/135

nice links

Barry Cooper #182,

The niche model doesn't explain the eye to me either. What it accounts for is a change in evolution from experimentation to (natural) selection. Coupled with extinctions, local or global, it explains how niches are Petri dishes for eons, and then switch to capture the most prolific of the experiments.

Shakespeare was a creator, but he didn't start with 26 letters and invent everything else from phonemes to iambic pentameter on the way to Romeo & Juliet. That seems to be what you ask for the eye to exist.

Imagine thousand of eye experiments where each has something peculiar relative to the human eye we have come to know and love. And of each of those in previous niches at earlier times, thousands of other experiments. Trace each back through thousands of steps to the existence of merely photo sensitive cells connected to the earliest central nervous system. And continue further, through millions of niches, switching experimentation on and off. Along the way add in all the features of movable orbs, eyelids and eyelashes, irises, lenses, spectral bandwidth, field of view, depth of field, focusing, and so on. Strip out everything that now all has to work together. Think how each new attribute conveys survivability to its species through net prolificity of populations.

Don't worry that such experimental and primitive ancestors have not been discovered in the fossil record. Fossils are rare events requiring disasters to capture specimens. Most of them happen in those long periods of stability where the niches are full and the number of species least, and of those, most samples were destroyed by other natural processes. We need fossils made in those short intervals of a few million years or so out of the billions of years of life where experimentation is rampant, and we need extensive events like mud slides and eruptions and tar pits to capture a sizeable number of specimens at a time when the populations are relatively quite small. Our samples are extremely few and far between, and quite limited in the kind of tissue that is preserved. You have several thousand million generations to work with in this thought experiment. If we could observe much of it at all we wouldn't need science or scripture.

The Shakespeare analogy would be the thought experiment of tracing back his works through the concepts of his predecessors and recorded history that illuminated his creations. Take it back step by step, dissembling literature, syntax and grammar, logic, poetry, meter, orthography, dictionaries, words, and phonemes.

You are limited only by your imagination in how the eye or Macbeth came to pass from a standing start.

Jeff,

I understand what you are saying, and before I say more, I want to comment that I fully appreciate what in my own terms I can only call the aesthetic beauty of Darwin's Theory. From chaos, he brought order. From limitless complexity, he--through a few very simple rules--enabled sense to be made of literally the entirely of life. As one ponders the countless, intricate processes brought in one stroke under a rubric amenable to scientific inquiry, I personally understand fully why he is often mentioned in the same breath as Newton and Einstein. This makes sense to me.

At the same time, people who understand these things better than I do--such as Michael Behe--state unambiguously that the countless experiments, added together, could not add up to the eye. For now, let me say simply that that is the opinion of SOME who understand the field fully as well as the best evolutionary biologists working.

Turning, though, to real time, experimentally observable phenomena, think about this process of DNA sequencing. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the code for both legs and arms are in the same DNA strands--logically, they would have to be if DNA contains all the information necessary to build life.

One precise sequence builds an arm, and another a leg. When we look at salamanders, we can take flesh that started as an arm, graft it on to the tail, and depending on the stage in which we do it, the salamander either grows a second tail, or a second arm, on its tail.

What is it that tells the DNA how to sequence itself? It literally changes its action, depending on what part of the body it is attached to, and does it flexibly. Humans are the same way. Stem cells are undifferentiated, but from them come all other cells. How?

It seems to me that sorting out what order things happen in does nothing to explain the overarching control mechanism in place. It literally looks like there is some higher level field which acts as the site superintendant. He always gets the same materials, but he directs their use differently.

These are real world, real time examples of what the ID'ers focus on in evolutionary history. As I stated, I see no problem accepting virtually the entirety of orthodox theory. Small changes over time, mutations leading to larger changes, but there just seems to be something higher order putting the whole thing together.

Sheldrake has written a book called "Seven Experiments that could change the world", which involve things like testing if dogs know when their owners are coming home. He makes clear predictions, and offers experiments by which to falsify his ideas. Regardless of what one thinks about the paradigm within which he offers these experiments, these two items are what I personally believe are the irreducible elements of science, those which enable crosscultural, non-subjective communication of information. They are both necessary and sufficient.

Barry Cooper #185,

It seems to me you answered your own hypothetical. And I don't think the assumption that the same code exists in arms and legs is far fetched either. Your answer is that the code has a mechanism to know what its function, and hence its morphology is, depending on its location. This may be a great area for scientific research: discover and model that mechanism.

If I recall correctly, in a species of slime mold where the pieces are all disjoint, the pieces function differently according to their location in the mess. They can be moved and will function differently.

I believe you are correct that the species have a higher order control mechanism. In fact, I also believe there is such a mechanism in the structure of the human brain. I would model the body and the brain with such structures, and would have a tiered structure of delegated functions for each.

With one exception, what I don't understand is resistance to considering the best current scientific models to be mans' best effort to understand what God has done and set in motion. I have read a bit in Catholic apologetics, guided by a priest, and discussed these matters with a couple of other priests. I conclude that the Catholic Church accepts science in the manner that I have suggested. The Church is quite flexible in its Biblical interpretations, and that leads me to my exception. Where one believes that his scripture is the holy word, and incapable of interpretation or translational error, an indelible conflict exists between church and science, between fundamentalism and science.

If you hold such fundamentalist beliefs, I say fine, bless you, and let's talk next rest day.

If not, why not simply presume that evolution and the cosmology du jour is what God has created and omnisciently set in motion? Certainly you're not saying that God was incapable of creating the miracle of the eye, as you see it, by infinitesimal changes over billions of generations, or of loosing a Big Bang! Accept randomness as man's limitation in his knowledge, or as a supernatural atheistic force, your choice. You can be a fine scientist, mathematician, or Western teacher either way.

Jeff,

I'm not formally religious at all. The only quasireligious texts that have deep meaning for me are the Taoist texts the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, and Wen Tzu. I'm an admirer of some of the Sufi stories, too, although obviously not due to their specific religious content. Most of them are aiming much higher than that, on my reading.

In any event, the Catholic Church has now formally included the models current in evolutionary biology in their theology (thereby falsifying the infallibility of the Pope, but that's another issue).

So it's not a religious objection at all, but a scientific one. I think the best scientists in this field have manifestly dedicated themselves to what I would term rediscovering the old, versus doing something interesting, and finding something radically new.

Let us agree that all life is built from the proteins found in DNA. Most life forms have most of the same DNA, in the same sequences.

Let us say then, that everything you need to build a house can be found at Home Depot. You have concrete, timber, electrical, plumbing, paint, windows, even appliances and flooring.

According to the current models, I can go to Home Depot and build a one story house, a split level, a large mansion, a tree house, a foundation for my mobile home, a deck, an annex, or literally ANY other form my mind can conceive.

And what biologists are doing is retroengineering life to say something like: this ceiling joist was mounted here, secured in this way, and before that the studs were set in concrete and anchored, etc.

They can--or at some point presumably will be able to show--how the sequencing for an arm and a leg differ. At a certain key phase you do 18-16-14, instead of 18-16-15. It's all so simple.

Yet all you have described is the building process. You will have shown the order in which things happened, but this says nothing about the MEANS by which it was ordered.

You could take a hundred organisms, and show in detail in what order things happened, without addressing in the slightest where and how that information was stored.

Run electric current through an amputees body. A phantom electrical arm will emerge, if the field is photographed. How can DNA have anything to do with that? There are dozens of examples of this.

In my view, what will emerge, if our scientists ever decide to abandon their metaphysical/mythic belief in Materialism (irony intentional, and will note I am using metaphysical in a Machian sense), is that DNA is the raw material, but not the ordering agent.

This sounds ridiculous, I know, but everything I read tells me this universe is much wilder than all but religious imaginations would have believed.

It is my personal opinion that evolutionary theory is harder to grasp than quantum mechanics. Both are extremely counter-intuitive. Evolutionary theory, and what it entails, requires a dedicated reading effort to fully understand--I would estimate at least several thousand pages or more. Blind Watchmaker, Selfish Gene, and Ancestor's Tale are three great places to start.

Evolutionary theory is, in my mind, the most elegant and powerful theory in all of science. It is certainly worth the time to get to know it a little better.

The basics aren't that hard. Certainly, it is always better to understand EVERY topic in more detail. The more I look at this, though, the more USEFUL it seems to me it would be would be to find ways to frame what might be termed the Darwinian narrative in such a way that it could be experimentally falsified.

Dawkins is clearly a talented and imaginative wordsmith and storyteller. I have no doubt about that, and on an intellectual level, I fully understand his appeal. Yet, the question still must be asked: is he right? Coming up with a compelling story is not enough. Genesis is a compelling story.

And saying we have no alternative theories is not enough either. The only honest approach, moving forward, is to apply the same level of thought and care that has been applied to physics to biology. We know F=ma works because countless efforts to falsify it have been made, none successful.

The Field theory could well in included in orthodox biology, again, without any need to remove the conception of Natural Selection. Clearly, many animal species have perished, and those who survived did so because they were fit to survive. (btw, I don't think Darwin coined "survival of the fittest"; I think it was Spencer).

I just think that same objection that creationists make, erroneously, about tornadoes assembling jet engines, can be made with validity to ontogenesis--the formation of life from a small seed to a large organism. This happens everywhere, every day. This can be studied.

And I will add that if DNA is both the building material AND the blueprint, deciphering that will make Watson and Crick's discovery look like a gradeschool trick. I don't think it can be done, since they are looking--foolishly, in my view, given available evidence--in the wrong place.

#189 Barry

I believe the predictions the evolutionary model makes are as accurate and reproducible as those made by F=ma. You wouldn't call Newton a storyteller, so why would you say so of Darwin? Every prediction evolution makes can be falsified just the same as those by F=ma.

To consider evolutionary theory a simple phrase such as "survival of the fittest" is, I think, to misunderstand what evolutionary theory is. It is a robust model which makes a lot of powerful predictions--predictions which can be and have been validated by experimentation. Evolution is not useful because it is an interesting story to explain how we got here, it is useful because it enables scientists to make accurate predictions.

Developmental biology is an extremely intricate science, one which at one time personally gave me considerable trouble. Yet I do not think it is fair to use it as a counter-example without fully examining the theory and evidence behind it. It was not until I did so that my problems vanished. You spoke of the physical differences between an arm and a leg which contained identical DNA, and speculated about how one forms versus the other--yet answers to such questions already exist in the field of developmental biology.

Evolutionary biologists do not consider DNA a blueprint or a building block. A blueprint specifies exact angles and locations which are only relevant when viewed from an outside perspective.

Rather, DNA is recipe--it only dictates what is added and when. As in a cooking recipe, it doesn't specify the exact location of every grain of flour, it just says that the eggs should be added after the flour, for example. To visualize the function of DNA, imagine a hundred cooks in a room with an identical recipe for an intricate cake. None of them will make the entire cake themselves, they will each make a component and use signals (language) to bring all the various components together.

Ontogeny works the same way. As different phases of development begin, biochemicals (or fields, whichever you believe) signal other cells to start or stop a particular action. While the DNA in each cell has the instruction to create the whole organism, like the cooks, each cell only executes a particular role at a particular time.

Occam's razor in science and the scientific method

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[1][2] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein[3][4], the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[5] and the development of quantum mechanics by Louis de Broglie, Richard Feynman, and Julian Schwinger.[6][7][2] In chemistry, Occam’s razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[8][9] However, while it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criteria for selecting among published models.[2]

In the scientific method, Occam's razor, or parsimony, is an epistemological, metaphysical, or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[10][11][12][13] As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data becomes available.[1][11]

When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry. A number of background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter.[13]

As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occam’s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occam’s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the user’s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criteria for simplicity and complexity, Occam’s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology.[12]

The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occam’s razor, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.”[12]

It has been suggested that Occam’s razor is a widely accepted example of extraevidential consideration, even though it is entirely a metaphysical assumption. There is little empirical evidence that the world is actually simple or that simple accounts are more likely than complex ones to be true.[14]

Most of the time, Occam’s razor is a conservative tool, cutting out crazy, complicated constructions and assuring that hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day, thus yielding ‘normal’ science: models of explanation and prediction. There are, however, notable exceptions where Occam’s razor turns a conservative scientist into a reluctant revolutionary. For example, Max Planck interpolated between the Wein and Jeans radiation laws used an Occam’s razor logic to formulate the quantum hypothesis, and even resisting that hypothesis as it became more obvious that it was correct.[2]

However, on many occasions Occam's razor has stifled or delayed scientific progress.[12] For example, appeals to simplicity were used to deny the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, and reverse transcriptase. It originally rejected DNA as the carrier of genetic information in favor of proteins, since proteins provided the simpler explanation. Likewise, at one time Occam's razor rejected the sun-centered model of the solar system in favor of the geocentric model, and it would have certainly viewed Kepler's or Newton's laws as unreasonably complicated had they been offered in Galileo's time. Theories that reach far beyond the available data are rare, but General Relativity provides one example.

In hindsight, one can argue that it is simpler to consider DNA as the carrier of genetic information, because it uses a smaller number of building blocks (four nitrogenous bases). However, during the time that proteins were the favored genetic medium, it seemed like a more complex hypothesis to confer genetic information in DNA rather than proteins.

One can also argue (also in hindsight) for atomic building blocks for matter, because it provides a simpler explanation for the observed reversibility of both mixing and chemical reactions as simple separation and re-arrangements of the atomic building blocks. However, at the time, the atomic theory was considered more complex because it inferred the existence of invisible particles which had not been directly detected. The stronger form of Occam’s razor favored by Ernst Mach gives rise to logical positivism which rejects the atomic theory of John Dalton for over 100 years until the reality of atoms was more evident in Brownian motion, as explained by Albert Einstein.

In the same way, hindsight argues that postulating the aether is more complex than transmission of light through a vacuum. However, at the time, all known waves propagated through a physical medium, and it seemed simpler to postulate the existence of a medium rather than theorize about wave propagation without a medium. (Quantum electrodynamics eventually showed that the vacuum is not complete nothingness, but it is something of a medium with which light and fundamental particles interact.) Likewise, Newton's idea of light particles seemed simpler than Young's idea of waves, so many clung to it.

Three axioms presupposed by the scientific method are realism (the existence of objective reality), the existence of observable natural laws, and the constancy of observable natural law. Rather than depend on provability of these axioms, science depends on the fact that they have not been objectively falsified. Occam’s razor and parsimony support, but do not prove these general axioms of science. The general principle of science is that theories (or models) of natural law must be consistent with repeatable experimental observations. This ultimate arbiter (selection criterion) rests upon the axioms mentioned above. [11]

There are many examples where Occam’s razor would have picked the wrong theory given the available data. Simplicity principles are useful philosophical preferences for choosing a more likely theory from among several possibilities that are each consistent with available data. However, anyone invoking Occam’s razor to support a model should be aware that additional data may well falsify the model currently favored by Occam’s razor. One accurate observation of a white crow falsifies the theory that “all crows are black.” Likewise, a single instance of Occam’s razor picking a wrong theory falsifies the razor as a general principle.[11]

If multiple models of natural law make exactly the same testable predictions, they are equivalent and there is no need for parsimony to choose one that is preferred. For example, Newtonian, Hamiltonian, and Lagrangian classical mechanics are equivalent. Physicists have no interest in using Occam’s razor to say the other two are wrong. Likewise, there is no demand for simplicity principles arbitrate between wave and matrix formulations of quantum mechanics. Science often does not demand arbitration or selection criteria between models which make the same testable predictions.[11]

References:
1. Hugh G. Gauch, Scientific Method in Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0521017084, 9780521017084
2. Roald Hoffmann, Vladimir I. Minkin, Barry K. Carpenter, Ockham's Razor and Chemistry, HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 3, pp. 3-28, (1997).
3. Albert Einstein, Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content? Albert Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18: 639–641, (1905).
4. L. Nash, The Nature of the Natural Sciences, Boston: Little, Brown (1963).
5. P.L.M. de Maupertuis, Mémoires de l'Académie Royale, 423 (1744).
6. L. de Broglie, Annales de Physique, 3/10, 22-128 (1925).
7. R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. II, Addison-Wesley, Reading, (1964).
8. R.A. Jackson, Mechanism: An Introduction to the Study of Organic Reactions, Clarendon, Oxford, 1972.
9. B.K. Carpenter, Determination of Organic Reaction Mechanism, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1984.
10. Alan Baker, Simplicity, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
11. Courtney A, Courtney M: Comments Regarding "On the Nature Of Science", Physics in Canada, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2008), p7-8.
12. Dieter Gernert, Ockham's Razor and Its Improper Use, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135-140, (2007).
13. Elliott Sober, Let’s Razor Occam’s Razor, p. 73-93, from Dudley Knowles (ed.) Explanation and Its Limits, Cambridge University Press (1994).
14. Science, 263, 641-646 (1994)