Why do people debate the reductionist view on evolution without even understanding what is a reduction?

Question

Some people confuse the question of evolution and the question of the reductionist view on evolution. I think any scientist must accept evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. However, the reduction of evolution to the known laws of physics is a completely different question. Accepting evolution is not a question of proof. It is a question of evidence, and we have a lot. However, the question of its reduction to the known laws of physics is a question of proof. A reduction is a mathematical process. Not surprisingly at all, we don't have such a proof. A lot of the debate around evolution is related to this fact: we cannot tell if such a reduction exists. I feel that the pro evolution scientists feel threatened by this situation and lose their objectivity. Where is the weak link in this reduction : from evolution to chemistry, to chemistry to physics, elsewhere, or maybe none exists? We cannot tell. This doesn't threaten the evolution theory, only the reductionist view on it.

Of course, not greedy. It would be greedy if it was a way to deny the existence of evolution. No no! I totally understand that we can use the theory of evolution to explain the entire family tree, except of course for what is computationally too complex. The question is, IF we could do these complex computations, what exact laws would have to be used and
could we explain them in terms of the known laws of physics? I understand that we cannot answer this question. What I don't understand is why evolutionists feel threatened by this fact. I am not trying to explain away anything. I am referring to theoretical reductionism, not some silly way to reject evolution.

blixa22: If it happens that some particles not yet discovered by physics play an important role in some evolution process, would your entire view of the evolution theory collapse? This is just a theoretical example of what I mean by not reducible to the *known* laws of physics.

I know that physicists tend to believe that they have almost the complete description of everything, but hey that's also what they thought when we only had Classical Physics.

The fact is that, even if was true that physics has essentially achieved its ultimate state, we still don't know how to reduce evolution to this known physics. Your point seems that you believe that physics has achieved its ultimate state, at the least as far as evolution is concerned, and so, even if we have no proof, we must believe that such a reduction exists. It seems to me that you are simply adhering to a classic type of beliefs that we have seen so often in the history of science.

Continuing: In case you would return the question to me and ask why I do not want to accept such a reduction as the simplest explanation?

To begin, a theoretical reduction that is only assumed explains nothing, so it cannot be the simplest explanation. Just in case one has this in the back of his mind, the Occam's razor principle does not apply here. This principle says to find the simplest model for evolution, not to believe that evolution can be reduced to known physics when this does not even change the model.

I don't like that people expect me to believe something that achieve no scientific purpose. We accept a theory because we see it works, and this we call evidence. What is achieved by accepting this reduction? Nothing. It doesn't explain anything that is not already explained.

If it does anything, it just restricts the possibilities without justification. So, I see a problem when people adhere to this kind of beliefs.

blixa22: I read again your answer, and I think that you assume that I do not accept the validity, the universality, etc. of the mechanisms of evolution. Of course, I accept that they are like systematic algorithms, to use your language. I mean, I do accept that they are laws of evolution. For example, I am not expecting that by some magic natural selection could fail to work. My question has nothing to do with that. However, if you mean that I should believe that the laws that are actually in action as a driving force behind these fixed mechanisms are necessarily the laws that are currently known in physics, I don't get it. Why should I *believe* that.

emucompboy: Your first sentence seems nothing else than the expression of a belief. I am sure you feel confident because you think something like "I am just being the scientists here because I say physics and chemistry, etc. are the laws", something like that. For some, its the bible, for others its physics & chemistry. I know that you are thinking that it is completely different because physics & chemistry is science, verifiable, only based on evidence, etc. However, you are deluding yourself because it is not correct science to assume that some higher level properties or mechanisms are *reducible* to *known* physics without a proof. Again, *reducibility* in science is not a question of evidence, but a question of proof. So you *believe* what you want like Christians, Buddhists, etc. do. I am not a believer.

To jonmcn49: Oh great! I just read your point added. Now, I feel we are going somewhere. I heard of this entropy issue, and I plan to understand it. Are you sure it is good science? I have no opinion, but only by ignorance. Anyway, sure, if creationism is against established science, I don't accept it. I don't even know what is Intelligent Design, but the same principle applies. However, I was just interested on the evolutionist side, and I could not understand the strong reductionist view that is pervading amongst the supporters of evolution. By "strong" I mean accepted like the words in the bible are accepted by Christians.

blixa22: I read your added comments. It seems clear to me that the polarization between creationist and evolutionist is the issue. You answer my question as if it was a part of this debate. It isn't. You reinterpret every thing I wrote as if I was on the other side of this polarization. I am not. For example, I used "driving force" without any connection with any God, I only meant to say that the laws of nature are there behind these mechanisms. Still, you felt the need to argue that no "driving force" is required. You discuss as if you are defending the laws of nature in opposition to something *more* that you think I am proposing. Again, this is a consequence of the fact that you are too much thinking in terms of this polarization. Please, understand what I am writing in terms of the theory of evolution, the known laws of chemistry, the known laws of physics as well as the non changing laws of nature because that's all what I am talking about.

In other words, on everything that you argued about, I am not in disagreement. I am only in disagreement with the belief that you seem to have that these laws, which are behind these mechanisms, are necessarily the known laws of physics. If you say, "of course, they have to be the known laws, what else could they be". I'd say, we don't know, perhaps the known laws aren't sufficient. If you say, "for now, since we have no reason to believe they are not sufficient, why shouldn't we just assume that they are sufficient?" I'd say, we don't know, perhaps they just aren't sufficient. If you say, "but if they aren't, it's like we reject the basis of science." I say, no we don't have to reject anything except a useless belief, which only restricts our view on what is possible and achieve no useful scientific purpose. We need evidence to accept a theory, but we need a proof to accept a reduction. If it is too complex, it is not a reason to *believe* that the reduction is there anyway.

About greedy Vs non greedy, I meant that I consider that in science we should avoid greedy reductionism. So, I said "no no not greedy." Thinking more about it, it seems in fact that much of the reductionism in science is greedy. That's the point, I am complaining about the greedy reductionism view on evolution. It is greedy because it doesn't explain anything. Evolution theory explains a lot, but the additional assumption of a reduction does not explain anything more. It is just a belief that restricts the range of possibilities. Thanks, jonmcn49 to have brought this point in the discussion.

Answer 1

Hierarchical or " greedy " reductionism. Will be back when I have crunched some numbers. You, in the mean time, define your reductionism.

Yours sounds " greedy. "

Would you reduce the Battle of Waterloo to the movement of quarks and muons? Be not so quick to try to reduce biology to the laws of physics. Life opposes entropy.
The only thing evolutionary scientists like me worry about is creationists/ID supporters and social scientist who will not come to terms with the implication of evolution by natural selection for humans.
Be content that the biological processes do not violate the laws of physics. So constrained as to fit quite well within, without being reduced to said laws.

Answer 2

Evolution - not the descriptive theory of exactly how this or that evolved, which is based on "evidence," but the general algorithm which is implied to rule evolution - IS a "reduction" by your definition. This is what we accept. Well, those of us who do. See, if you accept evolution based on the evidence, to fail to accept that it's an algorithm would be like insisting, in the absence of direct mathematical reductions (actually, there is such an absence if you're that rigorous about it!), that water *might* still actually be flowing downhill by *magic,* and not obeying laws at all. We couldn't even understand evolution if we did not perceive the algorithm, the reduction.

You are correct that rigorously, we haven't shown that life began or can begin spontaneously -- but *to assume it did not,* would be unscientific thinking on a scientific topic. In general, folks who buy that evolution happens are thinking scientifically; they aren't willing to make the assumption that there is more to the material world than what the sciences can address. Which is to make more assumptions than necessary to explain observations. If I have my materialist scientist hat on, sure I'm "threatened" by the suggestion that the "reduction" is not true -- because that puts me on ground I can't navigate using a scientific world view.

One may find that once he goes ahead and tries on acceptance of the rather awesome idea that living matter might be only matter following physical laws, and has understood that for what it is, he may be able to see past it, to what he's really after. Then he may understand why no amount of reduction should threaten anyone's treasured ideas of meaning and truth.

_______________________________________
Response to your comment: What you don't get is, the mechanism of evolution depends upon physics and chemistry being what they are. If you changed these laws, you would change the nature of the universe ... and by the way, evolution would not function any longer. Think of it this way - natural selection occurs, at the finest level, when molecules interact and material effects cascade from that. On a macro scale you get evolution of species and increasing complexity, but ultimately it all depends on physical reality.

I'm not saying there's a "Driving Force" here at all -- I'm saying the opposite. It's the nature of the universe that these things happen, because they are thermodynamically favored under the laws of physics in this universe. That which is probable, or thermodynamically favored, is literally like water flowing downhill... a logical cascade of material effects. Perhaps that cascade is not entirely understood and "reduced," or totally predictable -- even completely knowable -- by science, but why should we believe there's *more* to it?

There need not be a "driving force" -- to assume there need be one, is to assume more than is needed to explain what we see. The nature of the universe is what it is - and that's your driving force. You may always choose to believe it is intentional; even if you knew the laws of the universe completely and could predict the probability of every event, science will not rule that out -- but that entire issue is wholly outside the realm of science.

Answer 3

the difficulty of reduction is why there are fields like biochemistry or physical chemistry. biochemistry can inform evolutionary biology but physical chemistry has not much to say, it's too far removed from observations by that stage. perhaps it's just because i'm a physical chemist by training, but i feel that that's where the weak link is. approximations are everywhere, it can't be helped because ab initio quantum mechanics is too computationally demanding. it's difficult enough for electronic structure, i don't know too much about it but the situation seems even worse for nuclear structure. scientists will continue trying to unite science, and if there is ever a resolution to the argument it will be found there and not by talking about it i think!

on entropy - i'm sure you won't be satisfied by a mere analogy but it seems like life opposes entropy in the same way that flight opposes gravity. it doesn't contradict the law.

much more here: http://www.secondlaw.com/

Answer 4

As I've answered for the past several nights: yup, biology obeys principles found in physics and chemistry.

But if you're looking at evolution, then looking at physics and chemistry is is too "micro." You're not going to see selection of phenotypes within a population of organisms. Look at populations over time. Quit squinting.

Answer 5

“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” -George Greenstein

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation...His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals the intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. - Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist)

"I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy....The astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world". -- Robert Jastrow (Astomomer) and former Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I
find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” - Freeman Dyson (physicist)

“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls
for the divine.” - Vera Kistiakowsky (physicist)

"For the scientist who has lived his dream by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow (astronomer and physicist)

"..... It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for the laws of physics". Stephen Hawking....American Scientist, 73, (1985).