Talk:Evolution as fact and theory/Archive 7

A few comments
As an uninvolved outsider (and a relative newbie to Wikipedia) I'd like to make a few observations if I may:
 * I am not a professional or practicing scientist, or teacher, but I have long taken a deep interest in evolutionary theory, and have read much of the more popular literature on the subject, including most of Gould and Dawkins.
 * Nor am I a semanticist, but I have long been intrigued by the failure of people to understand or appreciate the stark differences between words like theory, and many others, in their everyday colloquial senses as opposed to their use as a term of art. (And scientists are frequently just as guilty as anyone else in using the word theory with several different shades of meaning, within the same discussion.) An online article that I've found very useful and have sometimes quoted is
 * http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/intelligent_design_or_no_model_creationism,
 * and in particular his "digression" beginning "Misunderstanding on the part of most people as to what the word 'theory' means in science", which starts about 2/5 of the way down.
 * I was astounded to have found 3 years ago in Scientific American this letter
 * http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=letters-may-2009,
 * which badly confuses the term law, but was printed without comment, and then for good measure was quoted in full, again without comment, in the next following issue of New Scientist. (The letter has nothing to do with the speculation that there might in fact be a "law" of evolution. It's a very brief letter; if it's inaccessible to anyone I can quote it here.)

Turning now to this present article and the discussion here on its talkpage, For what they may be worth, here are my immediate impressions:
 * I came to this article by accident, in researching an entirely different question, from its being given as an example at Neutral point of view. I was thrilled to find it here, and all the more so because it struck me as being exactly what I might have written myself if I had the expertise and resources, and writing skill.
 * I was particularly pleased to find the Evolution compared with gravity section, because I have frequently used the exact same analogy myself.
 * Curious, I turned to this talkpage, and began reading, but I got bogged down fairly soon in the Removing paragraph comparing evolution to gravity section, and I have skimmed but not read the full remainder of this page.
 * User:Thompsma makes a proposal for either deleting or merging the section, but without providing any explanation other than "It does not seem relevant enough." I believe it would have been much more useful for him/her to have provided more discussion in the proposal. In fact it would have been most helpful for Thompsma to have provided his (w/o prejudice as to gender) specific suggested wording, even if quite long, for discussion.
 * Thompsma then proceeded to WP:!VOTE (not "vote"), on his own proposal, which is bad form, if not disallowed.
 * Next, in response to User:Orangemarlin's objection, Thompsma (somewhat ironically, it seemed to me) pointed to Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
 * And then in his next post Thompsma made what can only be described as an inexcusable error in copying OrangeMarlin's signature into his own post. If OrangeMarlin was infuriated, it was fully justified. The correct format to use would be simply
 * OrangeMarlin; or if a link is wanted,
 * User:Orangemarlin, yielding User:Orangemarlin, or
 * OrangeMarlin, yielding OrangeMarlin.

I want to be clear that I'm not in any way attacking or "picking on" Thompsma. He has done an enormous amount of excellent work on this article. He had a concern about the appropriateness of one section in the article, and rather than simply jumping in and editing it, he brought it here to the talkpage for discussion. Unfortunately, he got off on the wrong foot and made a few mistakes, which caused the discussion to devolve into angry and non-substantive posts that did little to move the discussion along toward consensus. Anyway, that's my take on it.

Next, we come to a new section, Belief in theory. Wow, this really complicates things, simply because "belief" is as much of a bugaboo word as "theory" or "law" are, if not even more so. Throwing that word into the mix in the article would be a disaster. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the section in the article itself, Evolution as fact not theory, it seems to me there are two different things going on here, but I have no authority at hand for support: That is, in either case this distinction between theory as opposed to not theory is essentially a question of semantics rather than a true disagreement as to content. If others agree with my assessment, it would be useful to incorporate some phrasing to this effect into the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, since the word "theory" is so widely misinterpreted by the general public, who are not familiar with its use as a scientific term of art but only in its vernacular sense, which has been much abused by creationists and advocates for I.D., it is better to yield the point and dispose of the word "theory' altogether in its scientific sense. This seems to be Richard Dawkins' point in particular.
 * On the other hand, I believe many evolutionists would distinguish between the fact of evolution, reserving the word theory to apply to the hypotheses concerning the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.


 * Thanks for your comments Milkunderwood. I have been away from this for a while and after the heated discussion decided to take a break from this. Here is my response:


 * "User:Thompsma makes a proposal for either deleting or merging the section, but without providing any explanation other than 'It does not seem relevant enough.'" - That was not the only explanation given as I later followed up on that issue. At the time I had been making extensive edits and there were few comments or discussions in this page. Hence, I was working along and fielding ideas on the design and structure of this page. I have already admitted that the first proposal I posted was not detailed enough. However, I subsequently followed up with a fairly comprehensive list of references that deal with this topic to broaden the understanding of this complex issue. Comparing evolutionary theory to gravity as theory is fine in itself, but there are many other comparisons in the literature dealing with this very topic - for example, comparing evolution against the big bang theory, or many other theories as Brian and Sandra Alters did in their book, as anthropologists Almquist and Cronin applied in their publication, and this is also the approach that Futuyma took in his book . I've done an exhaustive review of the literature on this topic and find that the experts in the field generally take a different kind of approach than presented in this article. Albeit, the inspiration for this article most likely stems from Gould's paper on "Evolution as fact and theory", but it does not make sense to focus on a single paper and instead the article should deal with those issues head on - 1. Evolution as a science, 2. Fact, 3. Theory. In the broader review of the literature, the experts in this field have made suggestions on how to deal with these issues and I wanted to bring some of those suggestions and approaches into this article. Some of the papers with suggestions even have experimental educational studies reporting on some of the more effective strategies for dealing with the misconceptions on this topic. The point was to broaden the scope of the comparison and not just focus on gravity but on scientific theory in a more general sense, gravity being one example among others that experts in the field have described.
 * My proposal was poorly worded because in the back of my head I was thinking of creating a new expanded section that would have included the gravity comparison. In my experience I have found it much more productive to just go ahead and edit without first saying what you are thinking of doing. In the end most people are generally pleased with the kinds of edits that I put in here. I made a simple mistake that blew into this whole mess. Like a pack of vultures people pounced on me despite my good intentions. The reality is that the response surprised me, because I have had a lot of editing experience in here. I've made thousands of edits in here without complaint and this issue threw me off and quite frankly I left with bad feelings. Hence, the page has come to a standstill. In essence, I was a good contributor - and actually wrote a great amount of the material that currently exists this article. This huge argument over a simple disagreement / misunderstanding has since discouraged me from contributing in here for fear of the attacks I received. People can make honest mistakes - the important thing is to enter into a dialogue with presumption of good faith and this is how things get accomplished.
 * The issue with OM is long said and done. OrangeMarlin was infuriated because OM has some issues that had little to do with my post, but more to do with OM's bad behaviour that was dealt with effectively as OM was blocked. The copying of the name tag was an honest mistake I made and I had picked up that "unforgivable" practice from a clique of other users I had been interacting with where this was common practice. A polite mention that he was offended by this would have sufficed. It is better not to revisit closed history. I admitted my mistakes and even apologized in places. Thanks for flogging a dead horse.
 * In response to your other comments you will note that in the discussion that you admittedly "skimmed but not read the full remainder of this page". The remainder of your post on theory is mainly opinion, which is fine - opinions are helpful. However, I regularly post links to sources that have discussed this very topic instead of while also giving my opinion on the matter. My referenced sources tend to point to well published evolutionary biologists who have published 2ndary sources or I link to primary source literature. When the primary literature is difficult to access, I paste chunks of quoted information so others can access and use that information.
 * I do not buy into this idea that we should shy away from talking about belief or other issues because they are too semantically complex. The point is to properly describe the very nature of those topics and how they thread into the subject at hand. In this way the semantic complexity is dealt with in a way that people can understand through an honest disclosure of the information that exists. In particular, this article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660310512/abstract) on belief in evolution states:


 * I completely agree with that sentence and think that reporting on that distinction can be helpful. Should we shy away from the term belief? No. We should make it abundantly clear that belief in evolution as we see in the public view is very different from the way that science deals with the acceptance or believe in theory. Contrasting public belief and attitudes on evolution against the scientific acceptance of theory is exactly the kind of approach that has been adopted by the experts working in this field. It is important to note that some scientists and philosophers have written about scientific belief. For example, Thomas Kuhn's famous book on Scientific Revolutions: "Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science." - that's a powerful statement. Philosopher David Hull has written on selection theory (which is the more apt term) and belief: "He regards conceptual change in the successful sciences as being in the direction of improved fit between belief and reality even though no direct comparison of beliefs with their referents is possible." On this topic, I will paste a perspective on belief that can help to clarify this very point:


 * The honest disclosure of this kind of information on scientific belief helps to flush out the way that scientists work with and understand theory. By working through these ideas instead of censuring out of fear of semantic complexity we can present a far more reliable encyclopaedic resource on this topic.Thompsma (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much appreciate your cogent response. And I apologize for beating a dead horse - it was just one of the first things I saw here, and I've never seen other people's signatures incorporated into posts elsewhere. I guess it if it had been me I would have stricken the offending signature as soon as I saw the problem, and followed the strikeout with just the name.
 * I agree that it would be extremely useful to discuss the semantics of the word belief, if it is expanded into a thorough discussion as you suggest. I wonder, though, whether this particular article on "Evolution as fact and theory" is the best place for such a discussion. There are so many terms with confused meanings that possibly a separate article might be the best place for this kind of discussion: fact; theory; hypothesis; law; belief; faith; truth; proof; etc, just as a random list of examples, which could easily be doubled or more. You could even get into the observer problem - is an "observer" only a human intelligence making a measurement, or is a moth flying by moonlight also an "observer"?
 * I understand your point about belief, but I worry that it might end up confusing this particular article. The confusion is all the greater, it seems to me, in the article's already having listed authorities who prefer to get away from the term theory as it applies to evolution, and I'm sure for either or both of the reasons I mentioned above - that is, for a semantic rather than substantive reason. Belief is particularly tricky because scientists are human; they not only use their vocabulary either specifically or loosely depending on context, but so many are unable to set aside their skepticism, and do truly believe in the truth of their conclusions, holding onto it as an article of faith.
 * Or, you and I could agree that disproof is a valid Popperian scientific term, but that proof has validity only as a mathematical concept which has no applicability within the realm of scientific inquiry. On the other hand, it is my own impression that the analogy with gravity is useful to retain, but I would have no objection to the section being tweaked, if that is desired.
 * The letter I referred to about the term law is so brief that I'll go ahead and post it here now; but I do recommend your looking at the Pine discussion I linked to. Here's the letter, in full:
 * Scientific American, May 2009:
 * "The Latest Face of Creationism," by Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott, details the tactics of those agitating against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists’ arguments by using the term "theory" when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law. ~Robin A. Cox


 * Note my caution that Cox is not using "law" in the correct sense as used by E O Wilson and others, but rather in the sense that Pine specifically warns against. Following is just a brief excerpt from Pine; it's useful to read his entire "digression", if not his complete essay on I.D.:
 * "A scientific law is a mere statement of the way things happen to happen. That is, if you perform act "Q" under given conditions "Z", then you will get result "R." ... Laws are not explanations of anything, they just describe what happens or they acknowledge the existence of particular repeatable patterns of what happens.


 * "Far too many of us have been taught in school that a scientist, in the course of trying to figure something out, will first come up with a "hypothesis" (a guess or surmise—not necessarily even an “educated” guess). After this "hypothesis" has been tested by an experiment or two, and it still seems to work and hold up after a fashion, then it can graduate to the next level of likelihood—it becomes a theory. Then, when the theory is finally "proven to be true," it becomes a law.


 * "No theory ever becomes a law. No law ever becomes a theory. They are apples and oranges. Also, neither theories nor laws are necessarily to be thought of as more tentative or "less proven" than the other. Theories explain why the laws exist in the first place—atomic theory explains why the gas laws "work." A given theory will subsume/explain a multiplicity of different laws. A theory can cause a law to be discarded. Relativity theory has resulted in Newton’s law of gravity having been shown to be not necessarily so. Theories are bigger and more powerful than laws."


 * Milkunderwood (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Milkunderwood - thanks for your honest and respectful discourse on this important topic. I agree with some of your points about the long list of semantics and scientific terms that this article could go into. It is not an article on the philosophy of science, but it has very specific and narrow reference to three parts (1. Evolution, 2. Fact, 3. Theory, EFT hereafter), so is this the best place to go into the concept of belief?


 * I put the preceding quote above, because it comes from Francis Bacon - the "father" of modern objective science. Bacon described the different kinds of Idols of the tribe, cave, theater, and marketplace. These are the places where beliefs are induced and it takes place within science. Beliefs in society (the "Idols of the tribe") are based on the cementing of ideas, which is the antithesis of further induction. Further induction into alternate beliefs would break down the cemented structure that holds the dogma together. Stephen J. Gould talks about this:


 * I have previously argued that the literature should serve as an impartial guide on the topics of relevance; = NPOV approach. I referenced articles above that discuss both EFT and belief. You state: "You could even get into the observer problem" If I follow the rule of thumb I give in the first sentence, then no, I could not get into the observer problem, that is unless I provide NPOV literature that discusses both EFT and observer. I have not come across such literature that I am aware. Although it is an interesting idea, it seems off topic. In contradistinction, the topic of belief IS threaded (quite extensively) into the EFT literature. From that perspective it seems relevant and meets the criteria for inclusion.


 * Still, is this enough support the inclusion of belief? I think belief is important to EFT on two ends and might explain why so many scientific authors writing about EFT go into surveys on societal belief in evolution (e.g., "Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds"). On one end, the creationist have a different schematic conception of the EFT terms that threads more tightly into the concept and their system of belief. This is why they don't believe in EFT. On the other end, we have the practicing scientist (evolutionist) that works with a different conceptual understanding of belief (Gould - "natural truth", Hull - "closer to reality", Dawkins - "Science is the poetry of reality") that is tied to the provisional acceptance of corroborated hypotheses and born out of theory.


 * I believe that a section explaining belief as it has been presented in the literature, as cited above, could help to explain or translate EFT to a person holding a system of beliefs that are quite distinct from those that are involved in the scientific practice. My concern with comparing the theory of evolution to gravitational theory is actually related to Gould's philosophy on the historical nature of things. Theories have histories, so evolutionary theory is quite distinct from gravitational theory in this respect. A broader sampling of theories in science and how they work in the practice of evolutionary science would be more of an encyclopedic approach. We should not be cherry picking ideas because we like them. This is an encyclopedia and we have a responsibility to report on the literature. The comparison to gravity is common, but there have been other comparisons in the literature. I previously proposed to more broadly title the section "Comparative theory" - or "Comparing theories", something of that nature.


 * I prefer the definition of law that is given in this article on laws in ecology: - but I like the information that follows on the description of laws. Regarding your statement: "Or, you and I could agree that disproof is a valid Popperian scientific term, but that proof has validity only as a mathematical concept which has no applicability within the realm of scientific inquiry." -> read the section on proof in the article Evolution_as_fact_and_theory that I wrote. Proof even goes back to the work of Boyle who would perform public demonstrations on his experiments. He called the experimental demonstration the proof of his theory and the process of agreement among the audience (Idols of the theater) would create what he called a matter of fact.Thompsma (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point I have to fall back and plead my status as a strongly interested but unschooled amateur in the history and philosophy of science. "A little learning [etc.]"
 * I brought up the "observer problem" just as an outlier that might be discussed in a different article on the semantics of scientific terminology, not in this article on evolution.
 * I think it would be useful in this article to draw a clear distinction between evolution as a process that does occur, which I think is uniformly accepted by evolutionists, as opposed to how and by what processes it occurs, on which there are many different suggestions/ hypotheses/ theories, some overlapping and others conflicting.
 * I'm still particularly bothered by the subsection on Evolution as fact not theory because while I don't have sources, I'm convinced that these authors are disagreeing on semantic rather than substantive grounds - either wanting to just dispose of the misused term "theory" as I suspect is Dawkins' position, or perhaps others wanting to reserve the word for describing its mechanisms rather than the fact of its occurrence. Despite the opening disclaimer, I'm afraid this looks too much like a substantive disagreement. We keep getting bogged down in semantics at every turn. In its simplest formulation, one could say, e.g., "evolution is a fact; Charles Darwin developed a theory to explain it", to make that distinction.
 * With regard to both gravity and belief, either of these might or might not fit well into an encyclopedia article on "Evolution as fact and theory". If the concept of belief is introduced, I'm convinced it would require a thorough discussion, which might take up a large portion of the article.
 * I think if it were me having written this basic article, and having then encountered disagreement as to what should be included or not, I would copy the entire article into my sandbox and try to rewrite it there to my own satisfaction, incorporating whatever ideas or phrasings offered by others that seemed particularly useful. Then once a draft is completed, invite further comment on my sandbox draft. In any case I wouldn't just go into the article itself and start changing things.
 * I'm not at all sure I'm being coherent here - I'm coming down with flu and my brain is suffering overload. Again, my impression is that this is an excellent article, and I'm impressed with both your scholarship and writing skills. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are good points Milkunderwood. I may go onto the sandbox first. Your concerns about evolution as fact not theory are noted, but I think Neil Campbell's quoted text explains the semantic meaning behind the other statements and this might help appease your concerns. Evolution is not A theory, it is a collection of theories, each with their own history. Natural selection is an evolutionary theory in the same way that niche construction and neutral theory are evolutionary theories (they explain the process or mechanism), but evolution as a whole (descent with modification) is a historical fact. Gregory touches on this:

Thompsma (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Germ theory of diseases in the lead
The lead has gotten too long. The sentences on the germ theory of diseases goes off topic. I think the following sentences should be deleted from the lead: "For example, the germ theory of disease was similarly highly controversial when first proposed, yet it was validated in the late 19th century and is now a fundamental part of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. In another example, the theory of gravity unifies astronomical observations with observations about the acceleration with which an object falls to earth. Similarly," - This shortens the lead, keeps it on topic, and what remains is actually expanded on in the body of the text, whereas the germ theory of disease is not.Thompsma (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Comparing evolution to gravity
While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.

There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity, but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.

Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place" and "Examples of N-D Es include clariﬁcation of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, diﬀerential survival and reproduction of organisms)", but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.

I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of a flaw in this section: "Many explanations have been proposed over the centuries. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein developed models of gravity, each of which constitutes a theory of gravity." Which is it, a model or a theory? I've read about Newton's laws on gravitation and Einstein's theories and within those frameworks they have presented various mathematical models. The more you go down this rabbit hole, the more the issue will get complicated. The story of gravitational theory is not so simply compared to the story of evolutionary theory. Unless presented in its proper form this could lead to greater confusion than understanding. Theories have histories attached to them and there is no singular prescript to the way that science is performed. It does not work with scientists sitting down and saying "Hmm...let's see I have, step 1. a hypothesis, step 2. let's build a theory, step 3. construct a model, step 4. design an experiment, step 5. test our assumptions, and step 6. demonstrate to others that I followed steps 1-5 in accordance to the prescripts of science." That's not the way it works.Thompsma (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the key points in the history and progress of science is the shift away from dogma toward the dialectic of theoretical pluralism so that ideas are continually challenged and progress is made beyond the threshold of current knowledge. Putting the theory of gravity on the same plane as the theory of evolution (more correctly stated as a theory of selection, but that's a secondary point) is problematic from the very nature of science. Notable scholars on the philosophy of science have written extensively about the nuances of theory, such as Popper's demarcation of pseudoscience from science through falsification, because all scientific theories have their own histories within an "ocean of anomalies".Thompsma (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are no doubt aware that it is possible to erect arguments that cast doubt on anything from simple facts like what "two" means up to whether any historical assertion (or in general, any assertion at all) can be known as true. So by the time we come to what "fact" and "theory" mean of course an enormous amount of doubt can be spread around. This article is not the place for that: to do so would be to mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree Johnuniq and this is not the place for original research. My point is that the very issue is complex enough to write about even from someone who is fairly well appraised on the theory of it. However, it is even more difficult to write on this when there isn't any substantive literature that makes the kind of comparison that is being made in the article. As I stated above - I clicked on each one of the citation links and searched for gravity. Only one link made a kind of comparison that is similar to what is given in this article, but even that was given as a quoted exchange between a teacher and student. Our responsibility is to report on the literature on this topic, not to design an anti-attack campaign for evolution against creationists. If there is literature out there that does make a compelling case comparing the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity that I have missed, then I would be very interested to to see that literature. However, it remains elusive despite my earnest efforts to read through this stuff. I would rather report on what the evolutionary biologists and educators are saying about evolution as theory and fact, not what people think makes a great comparison between gravity and evolution because it can thwart creationists.Thompsma (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind things like WP:PARITY which indicate that it is not necessary to use scholarly sources when discussing a fringe theory such as "evolution is only a theory". As well as not necessary, I am saying it would be unhelpful—not because I want a great anti-attack page, but because the article should be clear to readers interested in the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this citation - I'll work with this. The key points I made were: 1. the paragraph in the article cites Gregory who does not say what is written in that paragraph, and 2. there is no other citation contained in the reference section that says what is said in that paragraph. "the article should be clear to readers interested in the topic" - I'll have to think about that one for a bit, because here I was aiming to write a confusing article to bore the interested reader. I'm going to stop posting ideas in here and just work in my sandbox to write the articles and then post them. I can write a much more effective paragraph including the comparison to gravity while also using reliable source material.Thompsma (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thompsma. In what way weren't these satisfactory? The National Academy of Sciences apparently found the theory of gravity to be a worthy comparison-and given its wide use elsewhere as well, the point might be to find a more compelling argument against using it here too. Professor marginalia (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Professor marginalia - I'll take those citations into consideration as well. Note: 1. None of those citations appear in the article and many would be a better substitute than the Gregory reference for the gravity comparison paragraph, 2. I specifically stated that I could not locate any citation amongst those that are reference in the article that discuss the gravity v. evolution issue in the manner it is discussed, 3. on page 49 on the book linked by the NAS you will notice that the book states the following: "Isn't belief in evolution also a matter of faith? Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief" (see here  also) - and that section precedes the issue of gravity, which is essentially the strategy I've been trying to argue in favour of, and 3. each one of those citations give multiple theory comparisons beyond gravity, giving a much broader and more "resilient" perspective on the matter. Once again, I am not opposed to the gravity comparison. I am advocating for incorporating information and discussing the topic in a manner that is germane and consistent with the literature at large - including the links to the literature that you kindly supplied - and not narrowly focusing on one comparison that can create other problems; arguably, prime attention to gravity at the expense of avoiding other topical issues addressed in the very literature you have cited is not representative of a NPOV.Thompsma (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)."). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms.Thompsma (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Redefines Wikipedia's own definition of "Theory" and "Fact"
This page suffers multiple fatal isues: The hidden agenda of this page is to debunk "Creationists", by denying the possibility of other theories of the origin of the human species than "Evolution", particularly ones that involve alien infuences (or indeed, "god"). Evolution, it claims, is "fact", whereas it is no such thing, even in the context of the word "fact" in this page. Even Darwin later modified his own theory. To call Darwin's theory of the Origin of Species a "fact" is a gross and wilful misrepresentation of the scientific method. The scientific method deplores the arrogance of asserting any theory as facts, but instead allows for the acceptance of the most credible theory at the time. This permits alternative theories to be entertained even 100's of years later - for example, the theory of quantum mechanics vs Newtonian physics.
 * 1) does not agree with accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact", including Wikipedia's;
 * 2) seeks to add to, and thereby modify, accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact" to support its own arguements - a technique of propaganda;
 * 3) contradicts a fundamental point of scientific use of the word "Theory" - namely, to encourage other theories, however whacky, to be put and heard and tested against scientific rigour.

The page should be deleted. However, I invite others, particularly supporters of this action, to comment before commencing a third reccomendation. Abunyip (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it is not a "hidden" agenda. It is an open policy (WP:Due weight) and a guideline (WP:FRINGE). We do not put undue weight or validity on things that do not deserve them.
 * The page's agenda - debunking Creationism - that we are obviously in furious agreement upon, is hidden on the page. Abunyip (talk)
 * The ironic thing about it is creatonists are doing the things you accuse this page of. This article explains quite clearly how scientific theories are dynamic, and how "Darwinian evolution" is now inaccurate, but whose base concept is still valid in the modern theories of evolution. Similar to how Newtonian gravity has been replaced with relativity and quantum mechanics, but whose concepts are still applicable.
 * What some Creationists might be doing elsewhere does not vindicate false reasoning and propaganda on this page. BTW, quantum mechanics has not replaced Newtonian physics. Both Theories coexist in their particular Order of Magnitude contexts.  Abunyip (talk)
 * On the other hand, creationism is not. They won't even change a single "fact" in their Bible even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Their "theory" is the same theory that some bored goatherders in a desert once wrote. You are deluding yourself by even placing them on the same level. It's creationists in fact, who keep confusing "Darwinism" with modern evolution.
 * What some Creationists might be doing elsewhere does not vindicate false reasoning and propaganda on this page. Abunyip (talk)
 * Creationism will be given a voice here, the day they do what you think they should do: test their theories. No one prohibits them, but they actively refuse to do this. Why do you think this is? You can't expect us to accept their "Theories" with zero scientific support, evidence, or even a peer-reviewed framework can you?
 * What some Creationists might be doing elsewhere ...(etc)... Abunyip (talk)
 * And Panspermia is treated quite decently. It's fringe science, and perfectly acceptable and testable, unlike creationism which is pseudoscience and completely unfalsifiable (i.e. there is no way to prove or disprove it and thus it is not science). If you have a problem with honesty, I suggest you go to Conservapedia instead.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact (pun intended), you are seriously in error. It was Popper himself who acknowledged Darwin's theory was, by definition, pseudoscience because it was "unfalsifiable". So QED, you prove my point. But I dont actually "have a problem" with that. I "have a problem" with the devices and techniques of propaganda operating on this page, to wit: The page, 1. does not agree with accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact", including Wikipedia's; 2. seeks to add to, and thereby modify, accepted definitions of "Theory" and "Fact" to support its own arguements - a technique of propaganda; 3. contradicts a fundamental point of scientific use of the word "Theory" - namely, to encourage other theories, however whacky and including Creationism, to be put and heard and tested against scientific rigour. As a Reference, Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for debunking theories, it should simply explain them. This page seeks to discredit Creationism, and is both unscientific and political. It therefore meets criteria for deletion as it fails the test of Neutrality, and of Vandalism due to its only existing to disparage the (hidden) subject of Creationism, and achieves it with circular reasoning and false logic that is ultimately patent nonsense. Abunyip (talk)
 * I envy your enthusiasm to improve the article. Evidently it's in really bad shape if this is the kind of nonsense its readers conclude after reading it. The article isn't meant to be about creationism; it is meant to explain science.  Where there are overlaps, they should be limited to those instances where creationists misrepresent what the terms really mean in science. Otherwise, creationism is off topic here.  This article should clarify what scientific terms mean in science, and not confuse them further with false equivalence to what creationists think they should mean in science.  The opposite of propaganda, in other words. Professor marginalia (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really curious to see where Popper actually wrote that Darwin's theory of natural selection is pseudoscience. Even so, it is just his view - mainstream philosophy of science reject Popper's notion of "falsifiability" as a necessary universal feature of scientific theories.  Thoompsma is right that there are many different theories the value and usefulness of which depend on different criteria.  That said, I still think the theory of gravity analogy is useful because the point is not to compare theories of evolutionary biology to theories of gravity, but to make a point about the different ways the general people view the theory of gravity and Darwin's theory of natural selection and more recent theories concerning the evolution of species. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Poppers blooper is here Karl Popper on Darwinism Abunyip (talk)


 * No blooper - he dosn't say evolution is pseudoscience. He says that it is a metaphysical framework for generating testable scientific theories, which is pretty much what Thompsma is saying.  Today the more common term for such a framework is "paradigm" and the modern synthesis certainly is a paradigm that produces many testable theories.  It is certainly not pseudoscience and Popper does not call it pseudoscience. As Popper states, this kind of framework is logically necessary in science. Can't you read?Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can close this thread. The talk page is for discussion for improvement of the page, and Abunyip's suggestions are just misinformed and garbled. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if Popper did say that, it's simply not true. Find a U.maritimus fossil dated to the Cambrian era and evo is falsified on the spot.  Concurring with Slrubenstien and hatting the thread. If specific changes to the article are in mind please open a new section and don't forget sourcing for any claims made.  N o f o rmation  Talk  00:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

inductive/deductive
The actual testing of a hypothesis, in scientific theories, is inductive not deductive. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. Here is a list of definitions from Fitzhugh (2005):


 * abduction: inference of an explanatory hypothesis accounting for observed effects;
 * deduction: inference of predicted test consequences that should be observed, if the hypothesis is true;
 * induction: hypothesis testing, i.e., observing whether or not predicted consequences are the case.
 * Here is how Rieppel defines these terms:
 * "As explained below, deduction draws out the conclusion that is logically entailed in the premises: it is about what necessarily must be the case. Induction concludes from observation to a generalization: if all the swans I have ever seen were white, I might conclude that ‘all swans are white’. Inductive generalizations are not necessarily true, but only probable, and may be wrong, as when black swans are discovered in Austalia. Abduction is a form of argument that seeks a causal explanation of the data: if in the morning a piece of cheese left on the kitchen table shows carvings of little rodent teeth, and there are small droppings on the floor, the most likely explanation of those observations is that there must be a mouse hidden somewhere. An abductive inference again is only probable and can be wrong: it could have been the hamster from the little girl next door that had escaped and made his home in the neighbor’s kitchen, but that explanation appears (intuitively in this example) less parsimonious."
 * I suspect that you are referring to the following recent text:

"Scientific theories also contain speculation (abduction) at first but they are designed to be testable (deductive) and to develop heuristically (inductively) over time or through axillary claims, but the most important point is that they can be rejected by a critical test."
 * Abduction is synonymous to inference to the best explanation as it is used in some literature (e.g., ). The sentence talks about "designed to be testable", which is what deduction is "inference of predicted test consequences" - it is the syllogism of statements making a claim on the predicted outcome of observed effect in light of a critical experiment. The design is where hypotheses are made in the inference. The induction part "to develop heuristically (inductively) over time" is in reference to the battery of tests. Perhaps the wording is not so great, but that is the line of thinking I had when putting that together. Perhaps you will have some input that could help in this context? Is this the place where your comment was directed?Thompsma (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Evolution is both fact and theory" - Nope not all scientists agree
I once changed the opening sentence to this article as Evolution as fact and theory, which is correct. That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect and the experts in this field have published exactly this claim (namely Walter Bock and Kirk Fitzhugh). In several peer-reviewed publications - they have been quite explicit in stating that evolution is not a fact and it is not a theory either. Hence, I do not understand why there are editors that are trying to make claims that contradict the very nature of science itself. This relates back to a statement I made earlier: "We have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed."

"A single evolutionary theory as considered by Darwin does not exist, but several evolutionary theories occur with clear distinctions made between nomological and historical evolutionary theories, the latter being separated into a general and numerous special theories....If understood correctly, both nomological and historical evolution stand on their own as strongly corroborated scientiﬁc theories. Neither have to be further embellished as a fact or as true." He even makes it more explicit: "If understood correctly, both forms of evolutionary theories stand on their own as corroborated scientiﬁc theories and should not be labeled as facts." Once you understand what theory is, it is truly an absurd notion to claim theory to be a fact as well. Evolutionary theory actually refers to many theories, whereas you might be able to interpret it as a fact if it is refers to the subject that hypotheses are trying to explain. If you study DNA, the facts are the DNA sequences themselves. If I build a phylogenetic tree out of those DNA sequences, does it now become a fact that they evolved according to the phylogeny inferred? No. The phylogeny itself is an explanatory hypothesis of the facts as they relate to each other. "Conﬁrming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact...To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions."

The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy] may be helpful in this regard. On facts:
 * It is a fact life evolves
 * That life evolves is a fact
 * That 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.

This first two sentences are of the contingent sort, the last sentence is another kind of fact. In this first sense, the contingent nature of facts, evolution is a fact. However, what meaning does this really state? The key is in the term "evolve", which is why these kinds of statements, while they appear to help us to understand the claims, are really not helpful in explaining anything of importance. If life evolves, then this means that there is "decent with modification", but who is evolving? Life is evolving. Hence, the fact refers to many different kinds of creatures where we find facts. So are facts nested sets, such that "It is a fact that birds have wings, that birds have wings is a fact" and "It is a fact that birds evolve, that birds evolve is a fact"? In this way, fact is an inexact reference to the nesting of the systems involved. Wings are objects than can be observed (the worlds data independent of theory), but when we talk about bird evolution we are really referring to the hypotheses that explain the facts (wings, feathers, DNA, Archaeopteryx, etc..). In referring to the explanatory hypotheses as a fact, we are doing a disservice to the facts and hypotheses, because hypotheses can never achieve absolute certainty and neither can facts, but why add duplicity to a hypotheses by stating it a fact as well? Facts are supposed to exist regardless of our perception of them, they just are and as such they lack the theory-laden components that we are trying to test in the first place. We're not in the practice of testing the facts, they are already accepted as clearly as a bird has a wing. Who in their right mind would set out to test that kind of hypothesis? Referring to theories or hypotheses as facts kills the entire purpose and philosophy of science as a perpetual machine of inquiry. Hence, evolution is not a fact - but a collection of many facts that are explained by the theories and hypotheses within.

Hence, I would like to change the lead sentence and actually a lot about this article to correctly align with the scientific philosophy on this matter as an encyclopaedic resource and to do away with this creationist shield nonsense that is going on in here. It is complete nonsense to turn the science into something you want it to be as a counter claim against the creationists. If you are doing this, you are falling into their trap and and spreading misinformation about the actual practice of science. I'd like to remind editors that quote mining is one of the favourite tactics of creationists, which is exactly the strategy employed herein. I'd like to delete those quotes and turn this into a real article without being labelled a creationists POV pusher by a few ignorant punks.Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to write about your opinions on the "philosophy of science" elsewhere. Us ignorant punks are not as stupid as you imply. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "ignorant punk" label wasn't directed at you ArtifexMayhem - it was directed at a user that was banned and a few users that coaxed that user on. The papers I cite above are written by evolutionary biologists who have published on the topic of evolution as fact and theory and they are the premier experts in this field on "Evolution as fact and theory". This article is about fact and theory, which is not separate but directly in line with the philosophy of science, so I have no idea why you would be directing me elsewhere. Putting a page together that spreads misinformation, but is designed to appease people's fears about creationists goes against the very principles of Wikipedia. I am quite well informed on the topic and I am not writing about "my opinions" but on the WP:V material that by definition is not my opinion. Hence, you can feel free to post your opinions elsewhere, which is what you posted, and I will stick to the facts that relate to the topic of discussion.Thompsma (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to clear your prejudice and re-read my post above. I ask the same of other editors. I realize that this is a difficult issue for readers to contend with, theory is a complex topic. I realize that many of you are afraid to consider statements that seem to run contrary to the notion of evolution as a fact. Let me be absolutely clear - I agree with 1) evolution explains a great many factual causal relations in nature, and 2) ‘descent with modification’ has withstood repeated attempts of refutation by way of testing. I can make those claims and still maintain that evolution is neither a fact nor is it a theory, as have other published evolutionary biologists. There is one component to evolutionary theory that may be claimed to be a fact - the historical narrative which is a theory on 'decent with modification', which differs from the other four nomological-deductive theories that many evolutionary biologists have noted (see Mayr) in Darwin's thesis. However, even calling the historical narrative of evolution as a fact is a very odd kind of fact. It is a fact in the sense that it refers to the subject of reference in the explanatory hypotheses, but in reality it is a bunch of facts that are explained by many independent evolutionary theories that have been tested and corroborated. No matter how much you test those theories, they do not become facts - that is unless the history of science has mutated into something beyond its historical frame. I do not dispute that this stuff is still being debated in the literature, but from the Five_pillars I am adhering closely to the WP:NPOV principle in good faith.Thompsma (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim that something is "philosophically incorrect" and the examples from the encyclopedia of philosophy are only invitations for original research. We do not put our own views into the article, or our own arguments nor do we use our own arguments to decide on content.  All that matters is whether there are reliable sources that state that evolution is a fact.  If so, we include that view.  If there are other reliable sources that say it is not a fact, we include that view too.  But the only question is, what are the significant views found in reliable sources?  If they contradict our own reasoning, we still put them in.  If they contradict other significant views in reliable sources, we put both (or all) views in. The only basis for resolving this dispute is to provide sources saying evolution is or is not a fact.  No other explanation is relevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your post Slrubenstein. Here is one source that makes this claim: "To say ‘evolution is a fact’ is just an inexact reference to what is thought to have existed, which are organisms and the events in which they were involved. While evolution is not a fact, it is also not a single theory, but a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions." I want to make absolutely clear that I am not advocating for this claim, in fact I disagree with it and think that evolution is a historical fact - but that is not what is relevant here. I tried above to relay an effective explanation of the counter-factual argument as best as I understood it so that others might come to an understanding as well. What I think is relevant, however, is that the first statement in this article: "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not representative of the literature, where "Evolution as fact and theory" - the very title of this page, is more representative of the discourse on this topic. The former I believe stems from a scientific prejudice toward creationism, whereas the later speaks more to the open inquiry on the nature of this problem. This article should not be a prejudiced creation in an attempt to counter creationist arguments, but a factual representation of "Evolution as fact and theory" as it exists in the literature. In that line, the philosophy of fact and theory as it relates to the science should be represented without prejudice. I would like to alter the lead sentence to:


 * Comments?Thompsma (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll bite. Thompsma, I was taken aback by your original post under this "nope" heading, and your opening sentences "That evolution is both fact and theory is just plain wrong!! It is philosophically incorrect ..." appeared to be obvious POV-pushing. You've now explained yourself much more clearly. If I might make a suggestion here, I would strikeout that part, and rephrase it. Also, Evolution as fact and theory works fine as an article title, but this is by itself not a "statement" or sentence.

You are absolutely correct that "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not a "true" statement, but that's not what the article says. Instead it says that this statement "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," and then goes on to explain why the statement is made in these publications.

I think we may all be agreed that scientists have observed that life forms have evolved through the past, and continue to do so; that evolution is a demonstrable and demonstrably natural phenomenon. It seems to me that while scientists and philosophers of science do have real and substantive disagreements amongst themselves about the nature of evolution and its mechanisms of operation, the more basic problem is semantic, involving how "fact", "theory", and indeed "evolution" should best be defined as terms of art. And it is these definitional problems that are seized upon by deniers of evolution in "claims that "evolution is only a theory", "it is not a fact", or that intelligent design offers a credible counter "theory"." I think this is what the article is about, and should be brought to the fore. In fact, in my reading of it, I think the article addresses these semantic problems pretty well. My concern is more with the section (and subsections) Evolution as theory and fact in the literature, where I think it would be useful to re-emphasize that these distinctions are primarily - but not exclusively - semantic rather than substantive. It might also be useful to add a third subsection to accommodate Fitzhugh, who argues that in his understanding, "evolution" should not be considered to be a "fact". Milkunderwood (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good idea to add the sentence, "According to some (or many), evolution is a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions." But I am pretty sure there are also reliable sources that say evolution is a fact.  In philosophy and sociology of science, "fact" can mean different things.  We just have to be sure to represent (and explain) all the major views.  We have to decide on how to give them due weight, but we don't have to decide on what is right or wrong. I think we are making progress. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In actuality - that "Evolution is both fact and theory "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," - is also a false statement (e.g., ). I realize that is google scholar, but that statement does not appear in "numerous" publications (also, see here). I agree that the semantics in relation to the terms of art is an important issue that needs to be addressed and as you state the article does this pretty well, but could use some improvement. There are lots of published scientific works stating that evolution is a historical fact. The following quotes illustrate where I think that the semantics comes into play on fact:


 * 1) "Conﬁrming evidence cannot change the status of a hypothesis to a fact" (Fitzhugh)
 * 2) "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." (Gould)
 * 3) " US National Academy of Science (NAS) (1998), one of the most prestigious scientific societies in the world, a scientific fact is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed, and for all practical purposes, is accepted as ‘true’."(Gregory)
 * It seems to me that Fitzhugh has a different notion of fact, which is not at all surprising when you visit the philosophical work dealing with what a fact is. The surprising thing about the NAS definition is the 'observation' component. We can observe instances of evolution, but we cannot observe all instances of evolution. Hence, there are some factual instances, but not all cases can be observed that may exclude them from the domain of fact. Can facts in one instance transcend to related matters? There is a whole world of thought on what facts are and what they entail. Hence, adding a conditional statement - this is what X author thinks a fact is and according to those terms, evolution is seen as a fact. However, Fitzhugh has defined fact in a different way and prefers instead to strictly separate fact from theory or hypothesis and according to these terms, evolution is not seen as a fact, but a system of reference to many facts.Thompsma (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are manipulating the search to look for articles that state "Evolution is both fact and theory." The proper method would be to search for sources that say "evolution is a fact" and to search for sources that say "evolution is a theory."  The question is whether one can find many examples of both claims in the literature.  It does not depend on one source having the verbatim quote "evolution is fact and theory" in it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two questions:
 * With regard to "that "Evolution is both fact and theory "appears in numerous publications on biological evolution," - is also a false statement": I wondered about that, but chose not to question it. On the other hand, if "it does not depend on one source having the verbatim quote "evolution is fact and theory" in it", then perhaps the wording should be clarified.
 * With regard to "According to some (or many), evolution is a set of theories applied to a variety of causal questions", I think we might be running into yet another semantic problem, something to the effect of "is an overarching theory that includes a set of hypotheses " (some complementary and others conflicting). I'm not at all sure about the "set of theories" formulation.
 * Milkunderwood (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not manipulate the search - I was explicit and disclosed the exact nature of it. Manipulation would imply that I was doing something untoward, but I gave an honest and full disclosure of the search. Even if it is not verbatim, the article itself leads to numerous publications stating that evolution is not a theory. Hence, that "Evolution is both fact and theory" is not numerously reported. It is true that "Evolution is a fact, not a theory appears in numerous publications on biological evolution, but not all", that is without the verbatim qualifier. In response to - "is an overarching theory that includes a set of hypotheses ", while I see how you are attempting to accommodate the diversity of views on this, that is not how it has been framed. The most popular view I have seen repeated is Mayr's break down of Darwin's thesis into five separate theories, one that is a historical inference, four are nomological-deductive, none are "overarching". How about going back to the very early arrangement of this article and rethinking our approach:


 * Suggestions?Thompsma (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of responding to your question, let me just throw this fairly long quotation into the mix, taken from the same website I pointed to earlier:
 * http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/intelligent_design_or_no_model_creationism -
 * Ronald H. Pine, Ph. D., is a Research Associate at the Field Museum, Chicago, and Permanent Visiting Scholar, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center, University of Kansas.
 * I need to repeat that I'm coming to this discussion unschooled; the following description is simply pretty much the way I have long understood the issue, and I was gratified to find this summary that so closely reinforced my own thoughts. Possibly Pine might be cited as an additional reference if his essay is thought to be relevant:
 * "The word "hypothesis" should be used, in science, exclusively for a reasoned, sensible, knowledge-informed explanation for why some phenomenon exists or occurs. An hypothesis can be as yet untested; can have already been tested; may have been falsified; may have not yet been falsified, although tested; or may have been tested in a myriad of ways countless times without being falsified; and it may come to be universally accepted by the scientific community. An understanding of the word "hypothesis," as used in science, requires a grasp of the principles underlying Occam’s Razor and Karl Popper’s thought in regard to "falsifiability"—including the notion that any respectable scientific hypothesis must, in principle, be "capable of" being proven wrong (if it should, in fact, just happen to be wrong), but none can ever be proved to be true. One aspect of a proper understanding of the word "hypothesis," as used in science, is that only a vanishingly small percentage of hypotheses could ever potentially become a theory.


 * "Most people tend to think of the word "theory" as meaning pretty much the same thing as their concept of "hypothesis"—namely, a guess or surmise. A "theory" is thought of as a very tentative proposition. This is only natural, because that is the "ordinary English" meaning of the word outside of scientific contexts, and our citizens’ educational experiences have rarely done anything to disabuse them of this notion. As I define "scientific theory," it is a great, overarching, explanatory scheme which explains a vast number of phenomena; which makes connections between phenomena that would otherwise be perceived as having nothing to do with each other; which makes wild, off-the-wall predictions which nonetheless turn out as forecast; which is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence and has been tested countless times in countless ways without being falsified; shows consilience to a truly remarkable extent; and which is, for all practical purposes, universally accepted by the scientific community. A scientific theory has content, in spades. By this definition (and powerful arguments can be made against any other) there are only about a dozen scientific theories that I can think of right off the bat, and no scientific theories have ever existed which are not currently accepted. Examples would be the modern atomic theory, theory of plate tectonics, Einstein’s theories of relativity, the microbe theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, the modern synthetic theory of evolution, the gene/chromosome/DNA/RNA theory of inheritance/protein synthesis."


 * Note his phrasing: the modern synthetic theory of evolution. Would this then be interpreted as a "set of theories", as Mayr appears to describe? I don't have the background to be able to put these two paragraphs in the context of the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting Milkunderwood - it is a nice paragraph and well written. The modern synthetic theory of evolution is otherwise known as the modern synthesis. It was the marriage between Mendelian genetic heredity, population genetics, and the quantifiable aspects that were found to be consistent with and explained Darwin's theory of natural selection in a new light. Once the two were found to be consistent, this stimulated much discussion and consolidation on the mechanisms from a genetic level. This came to be known as the modern syntheses, largely developed by Sewall Wright, John Haldane, and Robert Fisher. Some have suggested that the modern syntheses also developed through ties to developmental biology and importantly to paleontology. Hence, here again, we have a smart evolutionary biologist recognizing that evolution is not a singular theory.Thompsma (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - do you have any comments on the proposed changes I suggested above? I'd like to hear your insight.Thompsma (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal probably needs to be changed around so that the first sentence matches the title of the article:

Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some nits to pick: "In the debates that ensue..." and "These semantic issues have led to confusion..."
 * Here is the result of some mostly minor wordsmithing:


 * That last sentence may be excessive for the lead's first paragraph. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks JPB for catching those typos and I like your recommendations. Glad that you deleted the last sentence, because I have doubts about the MES myself - tend to take a more Gouldian understanding of evolution through the interaction of complex hierarchies. However, I think the first part "is a frame" - needs to be changed. Perhaps: "Evolution as fact and theory is a subject that is debated regularly in the public and scientific discourse on the fundamental nature of the scientific philosophy within evolutionary biology. This topic appears frequently in publications that aim to clarify misconceptions about the science of evolution and the nature of these terms..."Thompsma (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Perhaps something like this could work:


 * I am still not completely comfortable with "identified as either fact, theory, both, or sometimes neither." Cutting out "either" might help that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - here is what we have:


 * Any objections to this change??Thompsma (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No objections to most of it - but I kind of like "either." If we get rid of it we need a word that has a similar function.  The point is, it is not so much that many people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory.  The issue - as I understand it - is that in some contexts people claim evolution is a fact.  In other contexts they claim evolution is a theory. I believe that when they do this, they mean different things by evolution.  So some people believe that the speciation of the hawthorn fly is a fact, or even that descent of all living things from a comon ancestor is a fact, and when they say evolution is a fact they are referring to these things.  Some people think that the theory of speciation through natural selection is a theory and they call this the theory of evolution.  As often the case, there are many people who do not hold with these claims.  We are not saying that evolution is a fact and is a theory, we are saying that some significant views hold that evolution is a fact, and some significant views hold that it is a theory.  These are not mutually exclusive, the word "evolution" refers to many things to some people. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, how about somewhat like this, then:
 * "identified as either fact or theory (occasionally both or neither.)"
 * __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I'll insert it and if anyone has problems with the details, we can sort that out later.Thompsma (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on fact
I thought I would add this quote from the citation that Fitzhugh (2007) uses to define fact. Fitzhugh makes the claim that that evolution is not a fact and this quote clarifies what he means by this:

Hence, I made some adjustments to the section on fact in light of this wp:v material.Thompsma (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Phantom Citations
I am Christian and not a "creationist." I believe that one being created the entire universe and all things in it. I call Him God. I bring this point up because I did not see the fact (as defined by the author's citations) that God created the universe adequately or properly discussed in this article. If special adaptation (which the author tries to label "evolution") is a fact, then surely the fact that God created the universe could be explained better in this article instead of just special adaptation being something observed by humans. Out of the many observations done by humans, it should also be noted that truthful testimony of billions in human history as to their relationship and interactions with God, His works in creation and interacting with His creation, and facts which support many of the theories of nearly all religions in the world should also be discussed in an "fact versus theory" article. "Creationism," then, seems to be a simplistic label for people who disagree with the author, whose bias towards Darwinist and evolutionist theories is quite evident. (The history of the word "creationist" is, of course, one of argumentation.)

Furthermore, there is a clear thesis to this article, which is that "Evolution Theory should be called Evolution Fact." The links provided by the author lend to this thesis, of course, are controversial authors and commentators (who are not biology scientists), argumentation against the propped-up demon of "creationism," and even the more hateful and abusive ones that call dissenters to their views "misleading," among other insults. For this to be a credible Wikipedia entry, such propagandizing should be removed. Also, trying to prove that the theory of evolution is a fact is within the realm of free speech, but is not encyclopedic in any way. When the citations and references support calling Evolution Theory (what scientists call it) instead as "evolution fact," this becomes argumentative and not encyclopedic. Please remove all argumentation from this article or simply delete it and post it on an argumentative forum.

Lastly, in regards to citations, there are several phantom citations throughout this Wikipedia entry. The readers seem expected to assume the premises of the author's arguments are true in order for the author to convince others that "evolution is a fact." These are too many list here, but reading this Wikipedia entry provides glaring instances of phantom citations. This is a common tactic in argumentative and persuasive writing, which is not what an encyclopedia should entertain.

This Wikipedia entry is very much like the links that are used to support it: argumentative, abrasive, subversive, insulting, and ultimately just propaganda. I say propaganda not as an insult, but to point out the clear fact that as many, many people disagree with the thesis of this entry, we are to be derailed as buffoons. Not sure where I came up with that? Start first with this Talk Section and read the author's own words. They explain his motiviation for writing this argumentative entry. Second, click on the links he listed to supports his arguments. It will then be obvious to any open-minded reader that this Wikipedia entry is designed to (1) make a controversial statement and (2) rebut any view to the contrary (such as this odd label of "creationism"). This is why I call this Wikipedia entry propaganda. While propaganda has its place in human society, it should be noted that any encyclopedia is NOT a place for propaganda - even by definition.

It seems as though the author thinks that Christians, like myself, who understand and know the fact that God created the universe, also fail to understand and know the fact of special adaptation. Really, the argumentative form of this Wikipedia entry seems like the author is ignorant of the fact that Christians and those he's likely label as "creationists" are usually only opposed to the statement that "humans evolved from primates." I certainly don't believe that humans adapted or "evolved" that way. Is this what the author wants to discuss? That it is a "fact" that humans evolved from primates? It seems like this is the begged question when reading this article. After all, no one anywhere seems to not know that species adapt. However, the vast majority of humans (and probably scientists) probably have a hard time believing that humans came from apes. (This is the controversy that seems to be harkoned in this Wikipedia entry, doesn't it?) I make that generalization knowing the fact that most humans know God or at least that He exists, and that He created all things. The vast majority. So it would be hard for most folks to swallow the argument that humans evolved from apes. In that regard, the author could then re-write this article, perhaps, in support of humans evolving from apes and hwo he thinks that is a fact. But as far as special adaptation is concerned... who are these phantom citations that disagree with that? There seems to be a lot of begging here.

Please remove this article and put it somewhere else, or please expound upon the fact of God, the proper dispensation of arguments from others, and the real people who hold views that the author clearly wants to refute. No more "Evolution has been described as..." without proper citations. But, clearly, this kind of article does not belong in an encyclopedia. This was a brash attempt by a very brash author, and the Wikipedia moderators should get to work on this piece.

Snootcher (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia's are for reporting the current scientific consensus on what is fact and what isn't. Deities do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry and therefore do not figure in scientific accounts of the origins of the world, of species or of human kind. If you want to know more about religious views of the origin of the world and its denizens you should look in religious texts, not in encyclopedias.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence for the "fact of God", it would be more appropriate to say the "Conjecture of God". Religion does not fall under the realm of falsifiable claims so it can not be called a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact. If you have no useful comments to make about the article please take it elsewhere, this talk page is not a forum. There is no bias towards evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same way that gravity is a fact. The fact of evolution has no impact on the existence or not of your God, it is not a related topic, see theological evolution. We don't give creationism extra validity per WP:VALID by pretending it is a valid view, that would violate NPOV. We simply report what the preponderance of reliable sources say. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Every religion has its own god or gods, Wikipedia doesn't choose one as fact. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your paragraph on human evolution suggests you are confused about what you think this article is about and what its focus is. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of insults and propagating one particular world view ("Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!"), it is first important to produce REAL SOURCES. Simply creating phantom sources for the soul benefit of arguing a thesis is NOT what should be included in an encyclopedia.  I have made mention of this point at length, and clearly no one touched on that.  Note also the title of this subsection.  Does anyone here care that this "fact and theory" article is POV, propagandist, insulting, argumentative, and non-credible?  I use these words because they are wholly supported by the style the author used, which is obviously not encyclopedic in format.  There should be no theses in encyclopedia, and clearly there is one here.  This article should be moderated if Wikipedia wants any credibility in becoming a real encyclopedia.  Furthermore, the fact that God exists, created the universe, and is actively involved in His creation was ommitted from this article, showing the bias towards atheism.  God, of course, has been known by billions of folks who have provided or even reproduced supporting evidence to their encounters with God.  Why was the Fact of God left out of this article?  And, again, lastly, who are these phantom sources that allegedly oppose Evolution Theory and this article's thesis ("Evolution is fact!")?  Basically, why is no one interested in making this a valid Wikipedia entry?  Why would anyone try to protect this article and its thesis so religiously?  Any preponderance of any evidence would clearly show that the Fact of God goes beyond mere insults and propagating other worldviews.  This preponderance would lead us to question why vocal, antagonistic, and controversial atheist commentators are the primary sources of this entry here.  Does anyone care about the scientific method, preponderance of evidence, and credibility anymore?  Where are you people?  This entry is clearly outside the scope of Wikipedia, but it is clear that the moderators (or at least one) are comfortable with the non-credibility that this entry exhibits.  That is not an insult or even a theory.  That is just a fact.  Move this article to a non-encyclopedia website, alter it for this format, or simply get this thing moderated.  Facts are facts, and creating phantom sources, disparaging counter viewpoints, and propagating controversial worldviews are simply providing for Wikipedia's non-credibility.  Get to work.  We need these phantom citations figured out quick, and the argumentation removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snootcher (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * {{ec]}Unfortunately, you've been misled. Evolution (including speciation) has been observed (see speciation for examples) and evolution is indeed a fact (read the whole article to understand why). That aside, our job on wikipedia is to report what the reliable sources say, and the high quality, independent, secondary sources we have support those claims. If you have other sources which you believe are not well represented in this article, feel free to present them. In the interim, please see WP:NOTFORUM; we need to keep discussion on article improvements, not on the article subject. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, you seem to have changed your comments in the time I took to respond briefly. Wow. This has quickly become WP:TLDR. In the future, please keep your comments as brief as possible so others can read and engage with them. Basically, list sources with only very brief commentary (such as quotes), and we can consider and discuss them. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparing evolution to gravity
While this issue has been debated - I maintain that there are serious issues and flaws with the section comparing evolution to gravity. Foremost, we have Newton's law of universal gravitation and Einstein's theory of relativity; some refer to Newton's theories, but the semantics on this is not going to help clarify the matter. The section in this article comparing evolution to gravity cites the paper by Ryan Gregory. However, if you read that paper it does not say what is written in this article. Gregory gives a description of gravity to review the terms of law, theory, fact, but does not make a direct comparison to evolution. Gregory does include a footnote saying that it is improper to call an evolutionist a Darwinian in the way one might refer to "“Newtonism” to describe the acceptance of the physical reality of gravity or “Einsteinists” for those who acknowledge gravity to be a fact." However, that is not what the paragraph in this article describes.

There was a huge debate about keeping the comparison to gravity section, but the reality is that the cited literature does not say what is being written in the text. Gravitation theory and laws have their own distinct history and place in science. If the point was to state that gravity is both fact and theory - then put a citation in that supports this claim. Where is that citation? I have no issue with the idea, but for the level of heated debate on keeping this section I would expect a greater reliance on the literature to express the views that are being represented herein. It is notable that Darwin concluded The Origin by putting evolution along side the fixed law of gravity, but I don't see how that history relates to the comparison that is being made in this paragraph.

Earlier I stated that "Quite a few of these references 1) compare evolution to gravity" - however, I clicked on all the cited material to test this theory and did a search for gravity. In reality, the comparison to evolution as described in this article is rarely done. For example, the following kinds of comparisons are made: "Natural selection, like gravity or electricity, is not directly observed by a simple examination of nature at a particular time or place" and "Examples of N-D Es include clariﬁcation of oceanic tides using gravity and of phyletic evolution evoking natural selection (nonrandom, diﬀerential survival and reproduction of organisms)", but these examples still fail to make the kind of comparison that is being represented in the text in this article. Gould mentions it in his paper on Evolution as fact and theory: "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome." - but that is hardly a comparison, it was a reference to fact. Futuyma makes the following comparison: "Natural selection, moreover, being as purely mechanical as gravity, is neither moral nor immoral." - still, this is not what the text in this article says. After clicking through each reference, the only citation I can find that makes anything close to what is being said in this paragraph can be found in page 7 of the following book If you read that chapter it is about a conversation between a teacher and a student talking and comparing gravity to evolution. If this section is to be maintained as a stand alone paragraph - this is the only citable source I can find to back up the material as it stands.

I have no fundamental issue with making the comparison to gravity if it is done properly. However, I think we need more than people's feelings that this is a good and notable comparison to include. At this point a wider survey of the literature on this exact topic does not support the claim that the comparison to gravity is well represented. In contradistinction, I provided quite a few references (above - see also for links to articles on belief education evolution and teaching science) that talk about this issue in relation to belief from a range of publishing evolutionary biologists, yet that idea has been rejected outright. Hence, there is an impartial and subjective element in the content of this article that is not following the normal guidelines for wikipedia's rules of NPOV or WP:V for inclusion on this issue. Most of the articles I have read in my review make much broader comparisons beyond gravity and experts in the field on teaching of evolution have expressed alternative and more effective methods for presenting on this topic in a way that can be broadly understood.Thompsma (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of a flaw in this section: "Many explanations have been proposed over the centuries. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein developed models of gravity, each of which constitutes a theory of gravity." Which is it, a model or a theory? I've read about Newton's laws on gravitation and Einstein's theories and within those frameworks they have presented various mathematical models. The more you go down this rabbit hole, the more the issue will get complicated. The story of gravitational theory is not so simply compared to the story of evolutionary theory. Unless presented in its proper form this could lead to greater confusion than understanding. Theories have histories attached to them and there is no singular prescript to the way that science is performed. It does not work with scientists sitting down and saying "Hmm...let's see I have, step 1. a hypothesis, step 2. let's build a theory, step 3. construct a model, step 4. design an experiment, step 5. test our assumptions, and step 6. demonstrate to others that I followed steps 1-5 in accordance to the prescripts of science." That's not the way it works.Thompsma (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the key points in the history and progress of science is the shift away from dogma toward the dialectic of theoretical pluralism so that ideas are continually challenged and progress is made beyond the threshold of current knowledge. Putting the theory of gravity on the same plane as the theory of evolution (more correctly stated as a theory of selection, but that's a secondary point) is problematic from the very nature of science. Notable scholars on the philosophy of science have written extensively about the nuances of theory, such as Popper's demarcation of pseudoscience from science through falsification, because all scientific theories have their own histories within an "ocean of anomalies".Thompsma (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are no doubt aware that it is possible to erect arguments that cast doubt on anything from simple facts like what "two" means up to whether any historical assertion (or in general, any assertion at all) can be known as true. So by the time we come to what "fact" and "theory" mean of course an enormous amount of doubt can be spread around. This article is not the place for that: to do so would be to mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree Johnuniq and this is not the place for original research. My point is that the very issue is complex enough to write about even from someone who is fairly well appraised on the theory of it. However, it is even more difficult to write on this when there isn't any substantive literature that makes the kind of comparison that is being made in the article. As I stated above - I clicked on each one of the citation links and searched for gravity. Only one link made a kind of comparison that is similar to what is given in this article, but even that was given as a quoted exchange between a teacher and student. Our responsibility is to report on the literature on this topic, not to design an anti-attack campaign for evolution against creationists. If there is literature out there that does make a compelling case comparing the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity that I have missed, then I would be very interested to to see that literature. However, it remains elusive despite my earnest efforts to read through this stuff. I would rather report on what the evolutionary biologists and educators are saying about evolution as theory and fact, not what people think makes a great comparison between gravity and evolution because it can thwart creationists.Thompsma (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind things like WP:PARITY which indicate that it is not necessary to use scholarly sources when discussing a fringe theory such as "evolution is only a theory". As well as not necessary, I am saying it would be unhelpful—not because I want a great anti-attack page, but because the article should be clear to readers interested in the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this citation - I'll work with this. The key points I made were: 1. the paragraph in the article cites Gregory who does not say what is written in that paragraph, and 2. there is no other citation contained in the reference section that says what is said in that paragraph. "the article should be clear to readers interested in the topic" - I'll have to think about that one for a bit, because here I was aiming to write a confusing article to bore the interested reader. I'm going to stop posting ideas in here and just work in my sandbox to write the articles and then post them. I can write a much more effective paragraph including the comparison to gravity while also using reliable source material.Thompsma (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thompsma. In what way weren't these satisfactory? The National Academy of Sciences apparently found the theory of gravity to be a worthy comparison-and given its wide use elsewhere as well, the point might be to find a more compelling argument against using it here too. Professor marginalia (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Professor marginalia - I'll take those citations into consideration as well. Note: 1. None of those citations appear in the article and many would be a better substitute than the Gregory reference for the gravity comparison paragraph, 2. I specifically stated that I could not locate any citation amongst those that are reference in the article that discuss the gravity v. evolution issue in the manner it is discussed, 3. on page 49 on the book linked by the NAS you will notice that the book states the following: "Isn't belief in evolution also a matter of faith? Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief" (see here  also) - and that section precedes the issue of gravity, which is essentially the strategy I've been trying to argue in favour of, and 3. each one of those citations give multiple theory comparisons beyond gravity, giving a much broader and more "resilient" perspective on the matter. Once again, I am not opposed to the gravity comparison. I am advocating for incorporating information and discussing the topic in a manner that is germane and consistent with the literature at large - including the links to the literature that you kindly supplied - and not narrowly focusing on one comparison that can create other problems; arguably, prime attention to gravity at the expense of avoiding other topical issues addressed in the very literature you have cited is not representative of a NPOV.Thompsma (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to backtrack a bit. I did say that the gravity comparison is not so well represented in the wider literature and I will admit that I tend to focus more on the primary than the secondary literature, where the comparison is more common in the former & rare in the later. Part of the problem is related to the debate (posted below) on the nature of this topic. First, the title of the page is "Evolution as fact and theory", then oddly enough the first sentence switches and states "Evolution is both fact and theory". I don't agree with the second sentence and, as the article itself shows, many scientists disagree with the sentiment that evolution is both fact and theory (for example: "‘Evolution’ cannot be both a theory and a fact. Theories are concepts stating cause–effect relations (Cohen & Nagel 1937; Nagel 1961; Hempel 1965; Harré 1970; Fetzer & Almeder 1993)."). It is a semantic issue - are we talking about evolution in the general or specific sense? In general terms there is a lot evolutionary theory, but evolution itself is not a singular theory. Moreover, I think that we should pay attention to the comments that Abunyip states below, even though Slrubenstein says the points were misinformed and garbled. Putting Popper's views aside (he later backtracked on his views on evolution and as Fitzhugh writes the answer to this is an understanding of the metaphysics behind the inductive, deductive, and abductive approaches - evolution is more of an abductive theory) - we have to decide what this article is about. Is it a counter-point to creationists objections, or is it an encyclopedic resource on the scientific philosophy and scientific practice of evolution as fact and theory? The two approaches make a difference on how the topic is addressed. I believe that the former approach as a counter-point to creationists objections leads to the kind of literature that you have posted where the gravity theory comparison is made for that specific function, whereas that approach is not so common in the literature that deals more specifically on the scientific mechanics of evolutionary theory. I like the idea of comparing evolution to gravity as a demonstrative point, but I would prefer comparing evolution to scientific theories in more general terms.Thompsma (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was archived by MiszaBot; I have undone the archiving, believing that this discussion is still germane and useful. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution as theory and fact in the literature
Thompsma, there may be no citations easily available, if at all, but it still seems to me the basic problem with this opening: is that while "evolution" is acknowledged to have different definitions, the basic controversy over "theory" and "fact" is also definitional much more than it is substantive. Seen in this light, there's considerably less disagreement amongst the quoted sources than it may appear. Essentially, Lewontin et al are simply saying the word "theory" has been hijacked by people who do not understand the term in its strict scientific sense, so let's sidestep the problem by discarding that term, and ground the concept of evolution solely as an observable fact. These are semantic rather than conceptual distinctions.
 * "The confusion over the word evolution and the distinction between "fact" and "theory" is largely due to authors using evolution to refer to three related yet distinct ideas: first, the changes that occur within species over generations; second, the mechanism thought to drive change; and third, the concept of common descent. However, among biologists there is a consensus that evolution is a fact"

Then when you get down to Fitzhugh in that second section, who argues that evolution is theory not fact, you might want to stick the word "However" at the front, to distinguish him from the others, who are arguing the opposite. But Fitzhugh, again, is really arguing the semantics of "theory" and "fact" rather than the validity of evolution itself as an observable phenomenon. And Muller appears to agree with Fitzhugh, in saying "... in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact ..." [my emphasis].

I think it's important to distinguish for readers between the "phenomenology" (which in one sense or another is accepted by every one of these writers) of evolution, as opposed to these semantic distinctions or disagreements. But I have no idea what sources may be available to clarify this.

I wonder if you may disagree with this analysis. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Milkunderwood...I actually did not write that opening paragraph. I was reading it a couple of weeks ago and thought it read like WP:Synth or WP:OR. I do not agree with the statement, because it implies that authors are confused where the person doing the interpretation of those authors is highlighting their confusion. I'm certain that Gould, Dawkins, and Lewontin, for example, know the difference between those distinctions.


 * What Fitzhugh is arguing is not really the semantics, but he is actually saying that it is quite imprecise to say that evolution is a fact. In this sense, the opening sentence is kinda correct - there are different hypotheses and theories in evolution that refer to many facts. So to say that evolution is a fact is a very imprecise way of utilizing the term. Fitzhugh's speciality of research puts him in a unique position. He studies the philosophy of science at great length. Here are some notes I put together on researching fact after having some lengthy and deep discussions with Fitzhugh:


 * According to scientific realism, a fact is "either the being of a thing in a given state, or an event occuring in a thing" (Mahner & Bunge 1997, p. 34). Theories and hypotheses do not turn into facts, but they refer to facts through our perceptions of phenomena. Facts are referred too by the "conjunctions of theories and observed effects" (Fitzhugh, 2007, p. 2). "Phenomena are causal events within the sensory apparatuses of organisms, but in so being, are themselves facts" (Fitzhugh, 2006, p. 40). However, for irrealists (see Hacking, 1988) "'reality' cannot be used to explain why a statement becomes a fact, since it is only after it has become a fact that the effect of reality is obtained" (Latour & Woolgar, 1979, p. 180). In other words, the irrealists do not reject the existence of facts or reality, but they suggest that facts become established and only after they are discovered and socially constructed through the "negotations among small groups of involved research workers" (Hacking, 1988, p. 282).


 * Is this semantics? As you suggest: "the validity of evolution itself as an observable phenomenon." This goes back to the notion of perceptual hypotheses (see ) - because evolution is not really an observable phenomenon - that is an abstraction. Observable phenomena are limited to our perceptions of things and we can really only observe organisms, that do not themselves evolve. We can do breeding experiments, but that isn't really evolution - it might encapsulate parts of evolution, but not the whole of evolution. We can see the transitions so clearly, but that is still a matter of theory.


 * So to say that evolution is a fact is to suggest that evolution is a thing in a given state or it is an event occurring in a thing. Evolution is neither a thing, but a collection of things in different states, nor is evolution an event occurring in a thing. You might say that the history of life threaded together in one great chain is the thing in a state of flux or it is a historical event and the thing it occurs in can refer to the planet Earth. However, organisms do not evolve, evolution is a population phenomena - so any fact about evolution would have to refer to populations or to say that evolution is a fact would have to refer to the sum total of all populations. Populations form a long line of descendant-antecedent relations where we can postulate phylogenetic hypotheses, but this is not really an event nor is it a thing - it is an hypotheses referring to a collection of facts. Evolution by means of natural selection explains many of the observable facts of life, but is not in itself a fact even if it is true. Facts that are in need of explanation are those that run contrary to the expected outcome of the theory. We record facts on the characters of organisms and note the remarkable similarities and the varieties that are in need of explanation.


 * Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. The point to all this is that it gets very difficult to suggest that "evolution" is a fact, because I really do not know what that could even mean. There are many different kinds of evolutionary theories, none that can be totalled up to say that they represent the whole of evolutionary theory. Dawkins has his replicator genic theory whereas Lewontin and Gould have their dialectical multi-level interactor theory. They are competing theories (personally I think the Dawkins concept has long since been debunked, but that's my personal thought on the matter!). Do we say that evolution is a theory, or do we refer to "the theory of the gene"?Thompsma (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this response. No, your discussion was not too confusing; I understood your explanation of Fitzhugh's position.


 * I come from the POV where my own bête noire is definitional - "what do you mean when you use the term fact", for instance? Fitzhugh is using a sharply-defined meaning of the word; but other writers, other than probably Muller, are using the term in other senses; and Muller himself acknowledges the distinction. Then the very unfortunate term "theory" has so many different definitions and meanings that it's impossible to use the word meaningfully without closely specifying the precise sense in which it is intended.


 * It seems to me this definitional problem underlies the entire present article. To what extent are the different writers arguing about anything substantive about "evolution" - which they certainly do - as opposed to their using terminology that is insufficiently defined and explicated, so that there is more the appearance of disagreement concerning "theory" vs "fact" than actually exists?


 * I hesitate to jump in and make any edits to the article itself, but I think I will go ahead and stick "However" at the front of Fitzhugh, since otherwise he does not fit under that heading at all. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's how the dialectics of science works. There is no prescribed method on how to do it, because it is a social enterprise. It is not entirely a definitional problem - it is just the nature of science that remains open to paradigm shifts, both in the way it is practised and in the way it sees the world. It is also the nature of language, which is by its very nature metaphorical. Lewontin wrote about this in his book - "The Triple Helix" pointing out the aptly noted dictum of Alexander Rosenblueth and Norbert Weiner: "the price of metaphor is eternal vigilance". Authors are in the habit of making statements that affirm facts, but this is a rhetorical tool. We can also create a matter of fact by getting everyone to watch and agree with the veracity of our facts by witnessing the experimental proof (this is what Robert Boyle did for his experiments - creating a matter of fact), but those facts may yet still be found false in subsequent investigation.


 * So facts require a bit of convincing, we need to make a convincing argument for extraordinary facts, but if I tell you that I measured a salamanders head width and it was 2.4 cm - I think you would readily accept that to be so, there is no reason not to believe otherwise. So facts are not all the same, some are more extraordinary while others are more mundane. They are also independent of science - facts are the worlds data and exist weather we believe or even if we don't know of them. When Muller hesitantly used his fact statement in the rhetorical sense - he was referring to the "matter of fact" that scientists would all agree with the general statement that life evolved - descent with modification. But this is not really the kind of fact that scientists use in their research, it is not an objective tool. This kind of fact is more like the way social facts are constructed and they are not very interesting to the scientist. It is another thing to say that in "real nature" outside our epistemological arguments that all of life evolved via descent with modification. What if in a small puddle in the Amazon a new life form is brewing. Unlikely, but perhaps it came and then went without anyone noticing. We tend to agree that life appeared once and once it came into existence it seems to have prevented new life from forming - it took over the planetary niche, as far as we know. How did life evolve? It evolved by Darwinian mechanisms, but is that the only way? Perhaps, but we don't know yet and can never really know all the answers to these questions. Science, however, is the best method we have for knowing and this is why it is best to keep fact and theory separate. We use theory to refer to the facts, so why would we even want to flip this around and use facts to refer to theory? How could you even use a fact to refer to theory? It is irrational - something science is not.


 * I am fine with keeping the gravity debate open. I would like to share a warning about the gravity piece that Richard Lewontin gave indirectly in his Massey Lectures - where he warns of the dangers when one discipline tries to lay its theory over another. An example he gives is cultural evolution, which makes him irate. He thinks it is dangerous to take Darwins materialist theory on organisms and import into culture and expect that it will give an adequate explanation. So to take gravity as an example of a "theory" and then to say that it is the same as evolution as an example of a "theory" is violating the contextual dynamics of theory. Theories do not always work in the same way.Thompsma (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to Improve This Article
1) Eliminate the "Evolution is a fact and Creationism is not!" thesis from this article.  If the primary only definition of a fact is that it is highly probable to a point that few or no people doubt it, and that it might lead to other highly probable offerings, then "Creationism," as you call it, is as much a fact as is Evolution.  Hence, there is no need for an argumentative thesis that is controversial in an encyclopedic entry.

2) Provide sources that are less controversal so that your entry can have more credibility.  Blasphemous atheists going on about the brilliance of Evolution (like Richard Dawkins and others cited here) do this for a living and are quite popular.  However, they act outside the scope of encyclopedia.  More scrutible sources make the article more credible.

3) Provide sources that disagree that "Evolution is a fact!" and that "Creationism is not a fact!"  Intelligent design theory, creation science, and perhaps a few other ideas come to mind.  After all, evolution is both a controversial catch phrase intended to excite a bit of anxiety, as well as something that has never been recorded in reality to date.  That is, no one has ever seen one species give birth to another species naturally, as if to evolve into a more survivable or enhanced species.  If all we are talking about is special adaptations through generations, then we do not need to use the catch phrase of "evolution," which is also being used here as a retort to "creationism."  Provide varying viewpoints to make this article more credible.

4) Biological science is a pretty large field.  It also includes medicine.  Hospitals, the scientific method, and most of the scientific theories that we have built upon in human history have come from the religiously oriented.  The point here is that religion and science are a married couple.  It seems that the author here might be trying to separate the two, denouncing one and propagating the other.  It would make the article better to incorporate the three suggestions above with this fourth one in mind, I think.

Please consider these four ideas, and please make this a better, less controversial article that is suited for an encyclopedia. There are always differing viewpoints out there, even in the biological science community. Only reporting what a few of those members have to say (especially the more inflammatory ones) makes this article less for an encyclopedia and more for a different forum.

Thanks.

Snootcher (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to want to remove the due weight given to scientific explanations, but have not provided any sources backing up your proposals. There also seem to be some misunderstandings, for example religion and science are entirely compatible according to many: Asa Gray and Ken Miller come to mind as religious scientists who have accepted both the fact and theory of evolution, while believing it to be reconciled with their religious views. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for NOT trolling here, Dave Souza. In response to your point, you are indeed misunderstanding religion and science as being compatible.  My point was what I wrote: "Biological science is a pretty large field."  It seems like the authors here are trying to pigeonhole things to a more narrow interpretation that fits a certain thesis, which seems rather appalling given the format here at Wikipedia.  Also, the whole attribution of "creationism" to religion, etc.  Basically, the point is that a lot of stuff was left out, and my suggestion to improve this page is to include it all instead.  It is not credible (and amounts to idealogical fascism) to censor out material just because it counters one's personal viewpoints.  Surely you would agree with that and would even consider examining viewpoints counter to those in this article, yes? As for "due weight," what is your response to #3 above?Snootcher (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're still posting long walls of text, and you're still requesting changes with no sources listed. Regarding #2, religion (and hence atheism) have nothing to do with this article. This article is about science, and hence we use scientific sources. Richard Dawkins is, foremost, an evolutionary biologist, and so his opinion on evolution is entirely justified here. If you want to make further requests for changes, please make the request very short, and list sources you want to incorporate. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling and trying to bait me, Mann_jess. My intention is clear: I provided suggestions to improve this page. Your advice, insults, and threats need to cease.  Please either consider the suggestions thoughtfully or simply quit with your negative posting.  This subsection is dedicated to the four suggestions above.  Respond to them or don't.  Please stop with your current tactics, as that might even help your cause down the road.  Thanks.  Snootcher (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For those who are still not understanding this subsection or might like to derail it, allow me to re-post the summary as a way to get things back on-track. Thank you.  "Please consider these four ideas, and please make this a better, less controversial article that is suited for an encyclopedia.  There are always differing viewpoints out there, even in the biological science community.  Only reporting what a few of those members have to say (especially the more inflammatory ones) makes this article less for an encyclopedia and more for a different forum.  Thanks."  Snootcher (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please keep your comments focused on content, not contributors. If you want something changed, the onus is on you to provide sourcing. You may have difficulty finding reliable sources to support item #3. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, Just Plain Bill. Now, can you consider my suggestions, please?  Notice that my suggestions were content-driven.  If you have nothing to consider and respond to here (I don't see a response to any of my four suggestions), then please simply remove your comments.  This subsections is not for debate (or worse.)  Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's really quite ridiculous we're even entertaining this guy by allowing this discussion to continue. His viewpoints expressed thus far make it clear he has zero intention of improving the article in respect to science and is here only to push his religious point of view. That coupled with the fact that he obviously hasn't a clue what evolution is or how it pertains to modern biology. Unless anyone objects, I suggest we hat this and any other topic he posts that isn't STRICTLY about improving the article with SPECIFIC changes and sources. — raeky  t  00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Raeky, you have yet to consider and respond to the suggestions I made here. Please stop trolling and trying to bait me.  If you will not treat this subsection fairly and positively, then please do not edit here.  I will not respond to your negative edits in the future, so please see if you can be a bit more professional and less attacking.  Either respond to any of the four suggestions above, or simply go away.  Do not simply harass and censor people; you need to make better points and no longer insult and threaten people.  Simply go away if you will not do the latter.  Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Point 1: "Evolution is a fact and creationism is not" is an accurate factual statement backed up by libraries full of books and mountains of scientific research and data. The burden is on you to prove otherwise with reliable sources. Be warned, your not the first person to come here to try to make such a claim, and the article remains as is for a reason.
 * Point 2: "Blasphemous atheists" is not a reason to not include something here. Richard Dawkins is a respected evolutionary biologist with MANY published academic peer reviewed papers, well respected and highly praised books, and just because you don't like him doesn't mean hes not a valid source for inclusion here. Again it's uppon you to find sources you think we should use, and present them here for review. Just stating that you don't like our sources without doing any kind of work on your end is against the policies here.
 * Point 3: "Provide sources that disagree with evolution." That's impossible because there are none. A crackpot publishing to other crackpots does not constitute as a valid scientific source for a scientific article. You will not find any reliable sources to backup this assertion, and again the burden is on YOU to do so, get to work.
 * Point 4: Doesn't make any since. Virtually all of modern medicine is based on science, and has nothing to do with religion. Religion stopped being about medicine about when we stopped drilling holes in people's skulls to release the demons. Your statements here make it woefully obvious that you haven't even a scintilla of knowledge when it comes to this subject.
 * That sufficient in answering your specific concerns? — raeky  t  03:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and reported you to Wikipedia, Raeky, for continuing to flame, troll, bait, insult, threaten, etc. You are no longer welcome to post in this subsection. Snootcher (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Before it's hatted, I'd prefer to give Snootcher the benefit of doubt concerning his/her sincerity, but to point out several problems.
 * This is the wrong article for the objections being made by Snootcher. This article is concerned only with, within the context of the scientific understanding of biological evolution, to what extent is evolution considered to be "fact" or "theory". The article is not about Creationism, or about the Creation–evolution controversy.
 * A glance through the archives of this talkpage will show a number of previous similar misunderstandings and fruitless discussions; Snootcher may find it helpful to review these.
 * As pointed out several times here, Snootcher has not provided any sources; but a review of the two linked Creationist articles in Wikipedia, and their See also sections, should provide any number of useful sources to buttress to his arguments, and he may want to join in the discussions on those pages if he has something new and useful to add there (not here). Milkunderwood (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to ignore someone's suggestions or censor their words. Either consider and respond to any of my four suggestions above (if you are able or willing), or simply leave them alone (and not take up space here).  This subsection is dedicated to those four suggestions.  Please remove your comments if you will not discuss those.  Thank you.Snootcher (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is important for anyone who wants to respond to this subsection to actually read the suggestions and then consider them. Simply censoring what you are unable to respond to is not the point of this subsection.  Please review the four points raised here and offer valid insight.  If you do not have that, then please refrain from editing here.  Thank you.  Snootcher (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you your still not complying with WP:NOTFORUM, none of your posts are suggesting improvements to the article, but are just trying to setup some sorta conspiracy against you and creationism by the editors here and wikipedia as a whole. For the final time, any additional posts here MUST comply with WP:NOTFORUM and be about SPECIFIC changes to this article, and not vague "your not being fair about not including creationism". We've told you that the burden is upon you to provide reliable sources for this assertion and you still haven't provided any proof that this article has a problem. Post again with something that isn't about improving the article, or not addressing all the specific concerns we've given you or asked of you then this whole thread will likely be hatted or your comments just deleted per WP:NOTFORUM and continuing down this path and, well, you've been warned of the outcome. At this point you're really just wasting everyone's time and your arguments so far really just amount to WP:BULLSHIT. — raeky  t  03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to stop trolling and baiting here, Raeky. This is your final warning before you will be exposed.  Your words will be left here for you to remove.  Please stop accusing people, threatening them, insulting them, etc.  This is your final warning.  This is a website for intelligent and mature conversation.  Heed this advice and stop engaging in "edit drama."  Respond to any of the four suggestions above or simply go away.  Thank you. Snootcher (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm under no obligation to sugarcoat my responses to you. You're not in compliance with talk page policies, and are basically here acting as a religious troll and not at all trying to improve this article, as has been pointed out by everyone here already. Do whatever you see fit, a WQA as pointed out to you Help_desk there, would be your best course of action, and since you're obviously not here to improve this article and noone else has chipped in saying this should remain open, I'll hat this now per our policies. — raeky  t  03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's enough of that. WP:NOTFORUM, WP:IDHT and generally WP:TE are just a few of the policies/guidelines being broken here. This is the second section to be collapsed. Snootcher, this is your final warning. Please read through the policies you've been linked, and please take the advice of the numerous editors who have thus far commented. If this continues, it's going to wind up at ANI very quickly, and escalating blocks or a topic ban are a likely result. That's not good for anyone. Please take a breather.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: edit conflict with Raeky, but I was in the process of hatting this as well. Please don't open another topic like this.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 03:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Phenomena of evolution
As a side note, this article does not discuss nor distinguish the "phenomena (or phenomenon) of evolution" from the fact (or facts) of evolution, which seems quite relevant to this topic. Facts, unlike phenomena, can be created "Statements state facts, and scientific facts do not come into being." Phenomena are the things that can be observed as they come into profile, so we can "see" the gradual transition in whale evolution fossils when they are lined up according to pattern of similarity. The similarity is the phenomena and phylogenetic evolution provides the explanation. Notice that you can replace phenomena with fact at any point in time and the intended meaning of the sentence remains - it is the line of transition from experience to theory. Like facts, phenomena are in also in need of explanation and phenomena can also be facts. A scientist refers to many facts (phenomena?) to construct a theory (abduction). A signal (the phenomenon, the fact?) is extracted during the inductive experiment from a sea of noise (the data). Fitzhugh also understands facts as things or objects that exist independent of theory and theory of mind, but when perceptions come into mind (observation of phenomena) they themselves become facts. Hence, the confusion becomes even greater. Phenomena and fact can be divided into two main classes. A good reference that gives this definitional distinction on fact (but not phenomena) is written by Thomas B. Kinraide and R. Ford Denison. 2003. Strong Inference: The Way of Science, 65(6): 419-424

"'Manifest Fact & Inferential Fact: Manifest: Capable of being easily understood or recognized at once by the mind: not obscure: obvious. Inference: The act of passing from one or more propositions ... considered as true to another the truth of which is believed to follow from that of the former.'"

Does anyone have any other insight into the distinction between fact and phenomena and/or thoughts on inclusion of this topic into this article. Many authors have written on the phenomena of evolution, so it seems justifiable to include a paragraph on this. However, it could get messy.Thompsma (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't have any further insight into this question - I was struggling to find a useful terminology in my comment above, as it was. But, yes, if you have sources, it might be useful to add a discussion of "phenomena". The article is already "messy" in that it isn't an explication of evolution per se, and so leads to the sort of confusions that we saw with Scootcher - it's really about the terminology of science, as applied specifically to concepts of evolution. What I worry about is the extent to which you may be viewing the article from Fitzhugh's stance, and perhaps tilting it in that direction. Personally I think it's a fascinating article, and that your own contributions are extremely interesting.


 * But I keep coming back to semantics, which in my own view is the crux of the issue. We have the sentence
 * Semantic differences between the usage of these terms (fact and theory) in science versus the meanings they convey in common vernacular have led to confusion in public discourse
 * in the lead, but no further discussion of this in the article itself. The quote from Lewontin could not be more clear that he is just tired of the debate, and wants to get rid of the word theory without worrying about the extent to which it may be appropriate.


 * I'm starting to wonder whether everyone who has contributed to the article, or has taken an interest in it, should perhaps step back, and ask themselves, what is this article actually about? Is it simply a response to and refutation of "evolution is just a theory"? Is it a general discussion of "how science works" or "how we know", but specifically as applied to evolution? Should we discuss phenomenology?


 * Should we further discuss the confusing term "law" as it is used in its scientific sense(s)? To the best of my understanding, E O Wilson and others have suggested there is, or may be, a law of evolution, in that all life does and indeed must undergo evolution; but I am not familiar with the literature, and may be misinterpreting what the thesis actually is. I still get a headache from having found this absurd misapprehension of what the word "law" means, in a letter printed without comment in the May 8, 2009 issue of Scientific American:
 * "“The Latest Face of Creationism,” by Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott, details the tactics of those agitating against the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists’ arguments by using the term “theory” when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law. Robin A. Cox Scarborough, Ontario"
 * Here Cox is simply confused by the terminology, under the impression that a law is "stronger" than a "tentative" theory. Quoting Pine (again):
 * "A scientific law is a mere statement of the way things happen to happen. That is, if you perform act “Q” under given conditions “Z”, then you will get result “R.” ... Laws are not explanations of anything, they just describe what happens or they acknowledge the existence of particular repeatable patterns of what happens.""Far too many of us have been taught in school that a scientist, in the course of trying to figure something out, will first come up with a “hypothesis” (a guess or surmise—not necessarily even an “educated” guess). After this “hypothesis” has been tested by an experiment or two, and it still seems to work and hold up after a fashion, then it can graduate to the next level of likelihood—it becomes a theory. Then, when the theory is finally “proven to be true,” it becomes a law.""No theory ever becomes a law. No law ever becomes a theory. They are apples and oranges. Also, neither theories nor laws are necessarily to be thought of as more tentative or “less proven” than the other. Theories explain why the laws exist in the first place—atomic theory explains why the gas laws “work.” A given theory will subsume/explain a multiplicity of different laws. A theory can cause a law to be discarded. Relativity theory has resulted in Newton’s law of gravity having been shown to be not necessarily so. Theories are bigger and more powerful than laws."


 * I think that again this comes back to the question of what, exactly, is the purpose, and thus the scope, of this article. (But if I'm being annoying in my persistent focus on semantics, let me know, and I'll stop.) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will respond to your post after I read it Milkunderwood - got caught in a double edit and want to post what I came up on the phenomena of evolution. Thought it important to note that many authors have referred to the "phenomena of evolution" - including George Gaylord Simpson (who was Stephen J. Gould's supervisor), and it was also used in Strickberger's 2005 evolution textbook, and it also appears in papers up until 2012. If evolution is fact and theory - it is also a phenomena.Thompsma (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "'The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires.' (Chamberlain, 1890)"Thompsma (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The following quote might seem dated (hence the awkward working, but Peirce had a very strong insight into evolution as has been the inspiration for Fitzhugh (btw). I found Peirce very helpful on the conception of law and the quote relates to evolution:

"Law is par excellence the thing that wants a reason...Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause; since the tendency to growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth."


 * Your concerns about my gravitation to Fitzhugh are noted. I should state that I do not agree with Fitzhugh on a lot of points and have expressed this to him. He has sent me extensive reprints and they are tough reading. I have spent a long time reading through Fitzhugh for the purposes of this article because he has written more than any other evolutionary biologist on the scientific philosophy of evolutionary biology. I totally agree with your comment that everyone who has contributed should take a step back and ask what is this article about (I've stated the very same concerns you have just posted in previous posts). There are many ways to look at the science of evolution as fact and theory - from materialism, phenomenology, determinism, realism, metaphysics, epistemology, dialectical, and reductionism. There are many different philosophical stances and so we would need to decide on the tact depending on the goal of the article. I would prefer that the article was about the scientific philosophical underpinnings of fact and theory in evolution rather than an article that serves as a "go-to" link combating creationists. Should we put this to proposal and seek consensus?Thompsma (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * More simply stated: "You can see for yourselves that law prescribes like results under like circumstances. That is what the word law implies." The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Volume 1, para. 161, 1897.Thompsma (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I need to back off, because I'm already in over my head; I have nothing even resembling the breadth of your reading. As fascinating as I find both the article and these talkpage discussions, I can't help feeling that that all this is not so much an encyclopedia article as the beginnings of an essay on the philosophy of science. As it stands, I worry that by hewing to the injunction of WP:NOR, and taking quotes out of context, we have fallen into the trap of misleading our readers. The Lewontin quote, I think, is the most obvious example of this problem. It seems clear that most of the writers quoted here have very different concepts and motivations in mind when they use the words theory and fact - they are not, for the most part, arguing with each other from the same premises, or using these terms in any standardized, agreed-upon, senses. We can define these terms; but we have no basis for assuming the quoted writers are using the definitions we choose to give.


 * Let's see what suggestions other editors may come up with in response to this dilemma - or whether anyone else may see it as a dilemma at all. Milkunderwood (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Terms of reference of FAQ
This is a weird article indeed. I agree with Milkunderwood (above) that this article and discussion is moving into "the beginnings of an essay on the philosophy of science." Is wikipedia a place to create an article for the specific purpose of combating irrational creationist arguments against science? The premise seems un-encyclopaedic to me. There are lots of problems with this article citing a bunch of authors stating that evolution is fact, evolution is theory, and evolution is neither, or one but not both. That kind of information - a list of quotes - is not very useful. I have done my best to improve on the content away from quote mining, but I am heading into a wide open sea of scientific philosophy unless we gain some bearing and direction on this article and its objectives. Hence, a set of terms could help. Here is a suggested draft for such terms that could be placed into the header of the talk pages similar to the FAQ in the man evolution article:


 * This article is about "evolution as fact and theory", which is different from the claim that evolution is either of these. The goal of this article is not to combat religious or unsubstantiated claims, such as "evolution is only a theory". As an encyclopaedic reference this page offers descriptive and not prescriptive entries on the nature of evolutionary science. This is not a centre for debate, it is not a topic for religion, nor is it the place to settle the science.

*Entries that are acceptable in this kind of article must be related to the philosophical understandings of fact and theory as it relates to evolution. There are no hard and fast rules for what is fact and what is theory in science under the rubric of the scientific method. Philosophers have been contemplating concepts and tools of science for thousands of years. Some scientists are materialists, some are persistent reductionists, and some see fact through theory. These different philosophical underpinnings leads to diverse conceptions, understanding, and knowledge of fact and theory as it relates to evolution. These philosophical contradictions should not be capitalized upon as evidence of "trouble" with the theory or science, because the scientific method has proven its capacity for knowledge, understanding, and creativity. Scientists with diverse viewpoints. Debates among diversified philosophical schools of thought has been the hallmark of the scientific process throughout history, but some theories and methods have proven more effective with deep and lasting historical roots in particular disciplines. *This article offers a resource for readers interested in learning about fact and theory as it applies to evolutionary biology. Evolution is not a singular concept and as such any claim that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is a theory" is so general in nature that it is unspecific in its meaning. Which fact or which theory of evolution is being referred too? If it is referring to evolution as a whole, what does this mean? This article provides the context of information that can help to answer these kinds of questions.

*Evolutionary biologists that subscribe to scientific realism accept that there is an impressive body of empirical work in the life sciences that supports many of the claims put forward originally by Charles Darwin. In particular, his overarching claim that life has changed over time through a continuous line of decent with modification can be considered a manifest fact (see ). This kind of scientific realism among evolutionary biologists is best expressed by Stephen J. Gould, who claimed that evolution was fact:

"'On the other side, who would wish to deny the probable truth value of science, if only as roughly indicated by increasing technical efficacy through time—not a silly argument of naïve realism, by the way, but a profound comment, however obvious and conventional, about the only workable concept of factual reality...The true, insightful, and fundamental statement that science, as a quintessentially human activity, must reflect a surrounding social context does not imply either that no accessible external reality exists, or that science, as a socially embedded and constructed institution, cannot achieve progressively more adequate understanding of nature's facts and mechanisms.'"

*The mechanisms leading to the diverse reticulations, complexities, and hierarchical phenomena that is expressed among organisms may be as diverse as life itself, filled with infinite possibilities of inference. Moreover, evolutionary biologists have been necessarily restricted to the study of life on our planet and as such remain agnostic about the possibilities on other planets. Hence, evolutionary biologists subscribing to scientific realism accept that evolution by means of natural selection is a theory that explains real phenomena. Natural selection refers to a three part syllogism of inferential facts or principles of populations that have been and continue to be observed in all of forms of life under artificial or natural conditions, including: heredity, variation, and differential rates of survival and reproduction. In these terms, the model for natural selection leads to a logical deduction where the outcome of chance leads to a departure from original states leading to change among populations.


 * Removing edits from above:

FAQ's and Terms of Reference This article covers an advanced topic on evolutionary biology that falls under the philosophy of science. The FAQ covers questions that have been commonly raised in past discussions. In answering these questions, the answers provide general guidelines for editors and information to assist with aims of this kind of article.

To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

I'm going to be bold and insert the FAQ.

Revisions to first section on fact
I made some recent revisions to the first section on fact. However, I realize that the content is jargony and complex at this point. It is a skeletal foundation that needs the bones to be flushed out - simplified into a common vernacular that everyone can understand. The philosophy is complex, because the article was first written with the common mistake that fact is a highly confirmed hypothesis. This is a mistake that many evolutionary biologists have made - it is inconsistent within the much broader discussion on fact in both historical and contemporary philosophy of science. Douglass Futuyma makes this mistake, as do many others. Gould kinda makes this mistake, but he is crafty with his words so I'm still undecided on this. Evolutionary biologists who paid closer attention to the philosophy of science or write on the topic, as opposed to an experimentalist like Futuyma, (e.g., Ernst Mayr, Walter Bock, and Kirk Fitzhugh) have pointed out this mistake that keeps getting repeated. Anyway, the point I am making is that I have laid down a first foundation and will be working on this section and simplifying it in a way that everyone can understand clearly. I just needed to get the scaffold or plan laid out so that the concepts can be simplified from the text. If anyone would care to assist - a very simple introduction to these ideas can be read in the Kluge (1999) citation - freely accessible here. Many authors commenting on evolutionary theory make the distinction between universal and historical statements, but the Kluge (1999) reference is a shortened commentary on this and fairly straightforward to understand.Thompsma (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of fact
I thought I would post this link to a classic text on logic, by Adam Leroy Jones that gives a great chapter on fact - see page 13. I know that Arc has talked about fact in mathematics and I'm looking forward to this. I have read a fair amount of the philosophy of fact in math, physics, chemistry, and science in general - from philosophers, to investigations of their text. I wanted to raise this issue, because it is important to discuss on the concept of fact in evolution to identify the parallels of terminology in other sciences. The posted link above gives an overview of fact I have found most common across the disciplines.Thompsma (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FAQ question 4
This is mainly directed to Thompsma, although of course anyone can comment. I've made a (long) expansion of my comment at Talk:Evolution about question 4 of the FAQ. This is essentially a stream-of-consciousness analysis as I go through the answer. It should be read in a tone of “idle speculation to myself” and of course none of it is intended to reflect on the author in any way! :-)

Q4:How do we know if evolutionary scientists are correct or know enough to make claims about the factual or theoretical status of evolution?
 * The question seems to reduce to “Why should we believe what scientists say about evolution?” It also implies that we have already established definitions of “fact” and “theory” that we're using, so I might suggest including a concise definition of each earlier in the FAQ.
 * Change to: “Why should we believe what scientists say about evolution?” - supportThompsma (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But if the question is phrased so simply without a corresponding increase in simplicity of the answer, someone who reads the answer and doesn’t understand it will simply conclude “they’re prevaricating” and decide that they answer is “you shouldn’t.” :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary biologists that subscribe to scientific realism


 * I’m already not sure where this is going. It's saying, “Some evolutionary biologists hold this philosophical position,” and it’s unclear why holding a particular philosophical position would make one qualified or not to answer this question. For myself, I suppose I would be called an antirealist because I would say that the realism-antirealism question doesn’t matter, but I still call evolution both a fact and a theory (or multiple theories, if you prefer). I would also say that the original question is meaningless (or evaluates to a trivial “we cannot”) unless we make at least some basic assumptions, e.g. it is possible to obtain reliable knowledge through science, and I would say that discussing those assumptions is outside the scope of the article beyond perhaps a brief mention.
 * The point I was making is that there are going to be differences in opinion and not all science falls under a single philosophical heading, the two are interrelated. Introducing the concept of scientific realism seems justified, because there have been scientists who were not realists - although they are few in number today. "Debates about scientific realism are centrally connected to almost everything else in the philosophy of science, for they concern the very nature of scientific knowledge." - You might do well to read Gould's paper on the Science Wars - that I cited, because he gives a good overview of Bacon's objectivity and how this relates to realism.Thompsma (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I would recommend starting with “Although not all scientists hold a single philosophical position...” But actually, that might not be necessary if the answer were something like the following (which I also think is much clearer):
 * Science assumes that it is possible to understand the world through observation and experiment. This is a position that most people habitually assume during daily life, e.g. in assuming that objects they see and touch exist and will have the same properties that they did on previous occasions. It is supported by the ability of science to produce reliable technologies such as cars and computers, because these would not work consistently if there were no consistent physical laws. Similarly, science is able to produce new and better technologies with the increase in scientific knowledge over time.
 * This would then be followed by a description of how, starting from this assumption that most people make anyways, we can reach a conclusion that evolution is valid. (That is, a brief statement about the evidence, and a link to the Evolution page. Of course, other content from the current answer could also be included.)
 * Also, thanks for recommending the Gould article. I looked over it briefly and will plan to consider it in more detail soon. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "science is able to produce new and better technologies with the increase in scientific knowledge over time." - I completely disagree with this. This is kind of positive progressionism you see in antiquated evolutionary literature. Who deems the technology "better"? The latest in technology, usually spells disaster for the planets ecosystems. It may better serve human wants, but better is as debatable. Lewontin & Levins have a great section on this perspective in relation to evolution - you can catch the tail end of their description the ideology of "optimum" "progression" and "perfectibility" throughout history..Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognize this. Ironically, I had originally written “more effective” but changed it before posting because I thought it might lead to confusion. Of course, I don't think this applies to evolution itself (which I think is why you cited that source?) but rather to our understanding of evolution. In any case, the last sentence was mostly an addendum. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

accept
 * I’ve never liked this word, but it would probably take quite a while to explain it so I won't discuss it for now.
 * It is widely used in scientific literature - alternative to belief (which everyone gets in a buzz about when you say that term). Scientists tentatively accept the hypotheses that could not be falsified.Thompsma (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don’t mind its use in scientific literature (and of course I’ve seen it many times), but it gets misused in nonscientific and especially philosophical contexts. I’ve been preparing something to put on my userpage that partially addresses this, so perhaps I will get a chance to expand on this later. Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

that there is an impressive body of empirical work in the life sciences that supports many of the claims originally put forward by Charles Darwin.
 * So the sentence is saying that there’s lots of evidence (although I'm not sure why there is no elaboration on what sort of evidence it is); and given that, I’m not sure what the purpose of the first half of the sentence is. Of course you need to agree that empiricism can produce reliable knowledge before you agree to the evidence, but it would be easier to just state that, besides which (as I said) it seems out of scope. I’m also not sure why this is referring back to Darwin, since “evolution” generally refers to the understanding of evolution today, which is very different from what Darwin conceived. Most notably, I’m not sure how referring back to him helps to answer the question; my conclusion is that the author is being poetic.
 * The elaboration of evidence is in the main evolution article, this is just a FAQ for brevity. "which is very different from what Darwin conceived." - I would not agree with that at all. Darwin's theory of natural selection is as relevant as it always has been. His theory on pangenesis dealing with heredity is not the same as is it is understood today. However, the core syllogism of natural selection has not changed since Darwin and his thesis is one of the few from his time that is as relevant back in 1856 as it is today. Not being poetic at all, Darwin established the sharp line for populationist thinking instead of typologist approaches. Moreover, people arguing that it is "just a theory" often feel that it is antiquated because it was 'invented' by Darwin so long ago, so "surely some of it must be wrong" - the same error you have made. That's not how theories work.Thompsma (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know how theories work. :-) I agree that the core of evolution, i.e. natural selection, remains the same, but Darwin knew nothing about e.g. population genetics, which comprises a large part of the modern evolutionary synthesis and is part of what we think of as evolution today. That’s the point I was trying to make.
 * It is actually false in the strict sense to claim that Darwin knew "nothing" about population genetics. In fact, the term gene (coined by W. Johannsen in 1909) comes from Darwin - indirectly through pangenesis. A careful reading of his theory in his published work on varieties shows that Darwin new about independent segregation, dominance, and most of the concepts that Mendel had worked out (see, , and ). Darwin had worked out a lot more insight into heritability than commonly appreciated (not just blending theory or blood inheritance - that's folklore) through his careful and laborious attention to breeding experiments. He just happened to miss Mendel's work, or failed to appreciate it if he did read it and even then - Mendel's laws do not cover the operation of inheritance among bacteria or weird examples involving RNA where a "mutant Kit gene manufactures abnormal RNA molecules, which accumulate in sperm and pass into the egg. These bits of RNA somehow silence the normal Kit gene in the next generation and subsequent ones, producing the spotted-tail effect" (Pearson, 2006, Nature 441, p. 400). Of course Darwin did not have an understanding of 'modern population genetics' through the "theory of the gene" (yes, even the gene is "just a theory"), but even modern evolutionary biologists are limited by their field of study. I wouldn't expect a paleontologist to be versed in the latest mathematics of population genetics and conversely true I would not say that paleontologist's are defunct in their scope of understanding evolution because they lack a complete understanding of modern population genetics. The modern evolutionary synthesis is still sorting itself out with advances / debates in eco-evo-devo, niche construction, and even theories on spatial sorting (for e.g., ). There is far more to modern evolutionary theory than the modern evolutionary synthesis reveals. It is just a "synthesis" and in no way was intended to serve as a comprehensive account of evolutionary theory and it is hotly debated and even among those involved in the synthesis; Sewall Wright did not agree with Ronald Fisher or J. B. S. Haldane on how to envision genes, for example. The point I am making is that there is a lot of history here, but every modern evolutionary biologist would agree that Darwin's theory is a most serious point of demarcation.Thompsma (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough – please replace my example with “molecular genetics.” :-) I’m definitely not disputing his importance or saying that work is not still being done (one of my favorites is this one), only that solely mentioning Darwin (or similarly, Wallace) without mention of subsequent work might implicitly minimize the contributions of others since then. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the linked citation!! It is useful for a paper I am writing on this topic.Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading a reference to Darwin has the opposite effect on me - it immediately puts me on guard against an appeal to tradition fallacy, and (if I were not already familiar with the evidence) would impel me to withhold judgement. In my experience, people who argue “it’s just a theory” deliberately make reference to Darwin in order to imply that all of this is just one person’s philosophical (rather than scientific) position and to ignore all the testing and further building on the theory that has occurred since then.
 * It is not an appeal to tradition nor is it a fallacy either. Modern evolution is not only based on population genetics (genetic essentialism is contested by many - e.g., Richard Lewontin, Stephen Gould, and a long list of others (see - even gene is an abstraction / metaphor) and even then, the principle of a replicating molecule is put into context of Darwin's theory of natural selection. I think you are missing some of the point behind the importance of Darwin, who gives us the precise origins of modern evolutionary thought. There are real instances of an "appeal to tradition", but this is not one of them. Darwin's work on earth worms and vegetable moulds, for example, was ignored for a long time, but now in niche construction theory scientists are starting to appreciate exactly how important that work was. Will respond to some of your other points soon - but more importantly, will revise accordingly - even though I am countering your posts, I am absorbing the context and can use this to improve on the text. A good dialogue is always helpful.Thompsma (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that it was a fallacy, only that the surrounding context (especially the word “accepts,” actually) is one in which many such fallacies are often found. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With regards to mentioning the evidence, I think a brief “such as...” statement could be sufficient. I think “an impressive body” is fairly bland and (because of the subjectivity of the word “impressive”) implies that the strength of the evidence is likewise subjective. An alternative would be to add something like, “and that evolution fully explains the diversity of life on earth," but I think a couple of sentences of description would also not be misplaced.

In particular, his overarching claim that life has changed over time through a continuous line of decent with modification may be considered a manifest fact.
 * Coming after the first sentence, this feels like a non sequitur, although I do draw the conclusion that descent with modification (as a component of evolution) is itself well-supported by evidence. I think the answer is also using an implicit definition of “fact” which needs to be made explicit, unless we’re able to assume that readers have also read and understood the article. Also, unless a “manifest fact” is different from a “fact” (my impression is that it’s the same thing, but I can’t be certain), I would just use “fact.” Also, “may be considered” is ambiguous – considered by who, and why, and why is it important, and presumably the author had a reason for not just using the word “is”? "The scientists who subscribe to scientific realism" is probably the intended answer to "who," but I'm not sure of the rest.
 * For a definition on "manifest fact" - see . The Kinraide & Denison (2003) distinction between manifest and inferential fact is a little weird, because it kind leads to conflation of fact and theory. This is akin to facts interpreted through theory - or "It is important to note that Popper conceives of observations as low level hypotheses, not as facts, because he maintains that observations exist only as interpretations of the facts of nature in light of present theories, not as the facts of nature themselves (Popper, 1968b, p. 107)." I'm still working out the conceptualization of this idea - it gets confusing.Thompsma (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That’s interesting. After searching, I found that this is the only article on Wikipedia where the phrase “manifest fact” is used, so I think it’s likely to be unfamiliar to most readers. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, manifest is an obvious term. I've been searching for a publication on fact. I've read quite a few philosophical papers on fact, but have found none to be very satisfying in terms of providing a clear break down on fact. Not all facts are the same. That citation is one of the few from the biological sciences that gives a distinction on fact, which is why I adopted the term. Still, I am working through the problem of fact.Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So we seem to have the statement that some components of evolution (including at least one central component) are facts. My impression is that this derives from the definition of “fact” being used, but I can’t be certain since it wasn’t stated.

However, in science, facts of any kind are in need of explanation,
 * This one is straightforward, but also feels like a non sequitur. More importantly, I don’t see how it relates to the original question.

but scientists usually focus on surprising facts.
 * This idea goes back to William Whewell and even Darwin discussed the importance of attention to "surprising facts". In the process of abductive inference, scientists comb through mundane facts, but the surprising facts are where most theories are born. Scientific theories explain facts, usually in the form of cause-effect - if, then, therefore. I do not see the link to non sequitur, but "are in need of" could be replaced with "demands" and it awkwardly gives facts an anthropormphic form. How about: "Science demands that all facts are given explanation, which is accomplished through theory. It is the puzzling observations or suprising facts, however, that capture the most attention." - This also addresses the next sentence you nominated for drop (and I agree). There is the scientist to consider in the process of theory formulation. This idea of an "instinctive" science in theory is old and it is still widely held that:

"'The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that seem refractory. Instinctively there is a special searching out of phenomena that support it, for the mind is led by its desires.' (Chamberlain, 1890)"
 * and

"'Knowledge of the truth or domain of a hypothesis in natural science depends in the sane way on the imagination of those who test it.'"Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don’t have a preference for either version over the other; let me go on a bit of a digression which will become relevant (and is also more broadly applicable than just this statement). When I was taught to write formally, one of (in my opinion) the best pieces of advice I ever got was to make sure that every sentence relates directly to the goal of the piece, and to remove everything else. The rule of thumb was that it should be possible to follow every sentence with “Therefore...[something that is directly relevant to the goal of the piece].” If you are arguing for any particular position, it would be “Therefore, my position is correct.” In this case, I think it would be something like, “Therefore, scientists are good people to ask when you have questions about evolution.” In this case it is only part of a sentence, but it is a grammatically complete unit within a compound sentence. :-)


 * So I should clarify the thought process I went through when reading that. It was something like “I recognize the ‘surprising facts’ claim and I agree with it, but it does not seem to be directly supporting the answer to the question, and does not seem to be a necessary lead-in to the next sentence, so I think it should be dropped.”


 * Sorry about that – I would say I expected too short of an inferential distance (If you’re interested. Also, a lot of my philosophy is very similar to what is described on that site.) And actually, just in case I’m missing explanation of another step; removing material and/or other methods of reducing its length (without substantially changing the argument) almost always leads to a stronger argument, if only because it is easier to comprehend. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay - read the wiki-blog on inferential distance, interesting stuff.Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the next sentence, I think this can be dropped.

Explanation is accomplished by a full disclosure of the facts after data has been collected, careful observations made, and creative hypotheses are formulated to test theories.
 * The author seems to be describing how science works. I am now wondering whether the goal of this answer is to argue that science produces reliable knowledge (although if so it should have been stated at the beginning), or perhaps that it is attempting to answer an entirely different question, like “What is the difference between a fact and a theory?”

A rational understanding and explanation of the facts is acquired through the iterative and illuminating practice of experimentation and deductive reasoning.
 * This is still describing the practice of science. It also seems to be describing (some aspects of) scientific theories, but doesn’t use the word, so I'm not sure. I’m also not sure whether the word “illuminating” is meant to serve a specific purpose.

The kind of scientific realism that is often adopted by evolutionary biologists
 * "A rational understanding and explanation" = "inference from theory". "Explanation is the understanding of causes." Re: “illuminating” - theories are supposed to "shine light into dark corners", otherwise what use are they? The metaphor of illumination from theory has been widely used in the history of science. The "iterative and illuminating" is called "retroduction" - see .Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If this answer is going to differentiate between kinds of scientific realism instead of treating it as a whole, I’m not sure why that wasn’t clear from the beginning. Also, “often” is WP:WEASEL.
 * You are right, it shouldn't differentiate between the different kinds of scientific realism - I'll fix this. I agree also with '“often” is WP:WEASEL' and will fix this also.Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

is aptly expressed by the late Stephen J. Gould, who was a notable evolutionary biologist of the 20th century to claim that evolution is a fact:
 * I assume that “evolution” must refer to evolution as a whole, but the earlier statements only stated that parts of it are composed of facts. I am now wondering whether the description of science was meant to describe what the “rest” of it is (or is composed of).
 * This is where I struggle - your assumption. Careful of assumptions. What is evolution as a whole? Once you start thinking about this it becomes impossible to clarify your meaning. Do you mean - "the great chain of being" as Darwin's grandfather called it? The idea that there has been a single thread of ancestor-descendant relations stemming from a single common ancestor? Even then, this is not complete definition of evolution and it has never been determined if there was a single or multiple common ancestors, so it cannot serve as evolution as a whole. All theories on evolution are about change, but "'Change' is not the pertinent quality of interest in evolution, but rather explanations of the differences between organisms." The whole of evolution and calling it a fact is an elusive thing. Usually facts are obvious things that we can all identify. I struggle with what the concept of "evolution is a fact" could even mean? Why not just say that evolution is true? That leads to the next part - the quote.Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I make the assumption because the word “evolution” is unqualified (which does not require assuming that evolution is well-defined; it would just mean that the author is going by his/her personal definition of evolution).


 * For “fact” and “truth”: I would say that the former is anything that is confirmed by experiment and/or logic such that it would be “perverse for a reasonable person to withhold provisional assent” (I think I’m paraphrasing a quote from somewhere, maybe even Gould). For the latter (although I suppose this is not really relevant), I would say that the concept is confused: a) that it carries too much connotational baggage to be used in a rational discussion, and b) nobody knows what you mean when you use it unless you specifically define in what sense you are using it beforehand. So you could define “truth” and “fact” to be the same thing, but then it would be simpler just to use “fact.”
 * Of course I have read the Gould paraphrased quote and paper many times over and have contemplated on it. If facts are things or processes that are 'confirmed' by experiment, then we are in a lot of trouble, because abduction (reviewing facts into the construction of a hypothesis) precedes induction (exposing the facts to experiment). However, at the most basic level any form of measurement is an experiment. So if I measure the length of a gecko's 3rd toe at 3.2 mm (the experiment), I can refer to that length as a fact about the gecko's 3rd toe. I observed the 3rd toe's measurement and the inductive inference of 3.2 mm is a reasonable enough fact to be referenced that "it would be “perverse for a reasonable person to withhold provisional assent”". There is an element or network of trust in the fact: trusting that the ruler was correct, that the toe was properly measured in a repeatable way, that it was the 3rd toe, or that I have no reason to lie about the toe's length. An independent researcher can empirically and publicly verify the length so we can agree on the fact. But what if it wasn't the 3rd toe after all; for e.g., elephants were just discovered to have a sixth toe. So now what we understood to be a fact about the 3rd toe is wrong, it was the 4th toe all along. However, it was “perverse for all reasonable persons to withhold provisional assent” that the fact was referring to the length of the 3rd toe! Like theory, there is no absolutely certainty in referencing a fact even in following a plea to all reasonable persons who claim the fact true. The reason for this is that it was hypothesis all along: ‘The gecko's 3rd toe is 3.2 mm’, is not a fact, but a statement that refers to facts.

"The greater certainty one holds for a hypothesis or theory subsequent to testing is nothing more than an indication of the ever-increasing understanding afforded by that hypothesis or theory of the facts we perceive or anticipate perceiving. Referring to hypotheses and theories as ‘facts’ is contrary to the explanatory nature of those concepts, and is a corruption of the intent to accurately represent the nature of acquiring understanding in the realm of science."
 * So what Gould is referring to is a kind of socially endorsed epistemological fact (You state: "“evolution” is unqualified, which does not require assuming that evolution is well-defined...personal definition of evolution", but facts are qualified, the should be immediately apparent, well defined, and not subject to personal definition.), which is actually a hypothesis that differs from ontological facts that are just out there in real nature, independent of our prejudice, and waiting to be discovered and referenced through theory. The problem is that I cannot find a paper that defines fact as a social phenomnea, yet it is used as a rhetorical tool in science quite often. As much as I am a fan of Gould, he made a mistake in his evolution is fact paper, or he should have been more clear about the exact phenomena he was referencing, because "evolution" is too general to pinpoint down to a fact. There is a large history on the nature of truth in science that I don't want to get into, but I do not agree with the concept of truth and its "connotational baggage to be used in a rational discussion". William Whewell who coined the term science referred repeatedly to the logical inference of truth and many scientists after him have followed in this tradition. Many evolutionary biologists and other scientists have referred to truth in theory. Facts have been translated by philosophers as statements of truth (see ).Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote
 * Based on the preceding sentence, this is supposed to illustrate “the kind of scientific realism that is often adopted by evolutionary biologists,” and also argue that evolution is a fact. However, he seems to be arguing that science is capable of producing facts, which is a different statement, and offers only one argument in favor of it (increasing technical efficiency). Most of the quote up to the ellipsis seems to be saying in various ways that there is no possibility except that science is "true," and I’m wondering why it wouldn’t have been easier to simply state the argument from technical efficiency outside of the quote. The second half of the quote (mentally removing the extraneous “true, insightful, and fundamental” at the beginning) makes the logical statement that social effects on the scientific process does not equate to science having no objectivity, which is an important point to make, although it's presented in a fairly roundabout way.
 * “the kind of scientific realism that is often adopted by evolutionary biologists,” and also argue that evolution is a fact. - No, only the former. Gould argued that evolution is a fact in another paper. Moreover, Gould is not saying that science is capable of "producing facts" - blech! Science can't produce facts - they are the worlds data. Some scientists refer to "scientific facts", but that is kinda weird. We can observe facts, refer to facts, understand facts, but in no way can we "produce" a fact. Science can create effects or phenomena, but then that is a different subject matter. I do not know where you are getting the "technical efficiency" concept from? I supplied the quote because I thought it presented the concept well. I'll think about it.Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Parsing the sentence, it says, “Gould...[expressed] [this quote]...to claim that evolution is a fact.”


 * About producing facts: I think we may be working from different definitions of fact. As per my definition above, I would say that “scientific fact” is used as a contrast to mathematical/logical facts, and that you would usually use it to distinguish it from these or from colloquial meanings of the word. Another interpretation that I’m fine with is that science (i.e. the process of science) does not produce the facts themselves, but produces our knowledge of the facts.
 * There are no scientific facts - "facts are the worlds data" (paraphrasing Gould). Hence, there is no colloquial meaning of the word. Facts are facts. See Talk:Evolution_as_fact_and_theoryThompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Technical efficiency is an argument for scientific realism, and it’s the one that I expanded in more detail in my proposed answer. It basically says that science is so successful at producing new technologies that the best explanation for this is that some kind of external world exists and that science is obtaining knowledge of it. My own phrasing would be, “There is clearly something that determines the results of our experiments, and that does this in a consistent way.” My inference is that Gould is referring to this argument. A broader and more powerful version is that science is able to make better predictions of all sorts over time (as opposed to only those predictions that a particular kind of technology will work).


 * At the conclusion, I still don't see where the original question was answered. My impression is that the paragraph is in three parts: a discussion of (some aspects of) evolution, a description of science, and then an argument that science can produce facts (but the last is not distinguished from an argument that science can produce truth, and I am not sure whether or not those two possibilities are meant to be the same thing, although the Gould quote seems to imply it).
 * Once again, science cannot produce facts. I think the problem is with the question itself and it should say something like: "read the article". Perhaps it does not belong in the FAQ. It would take an essay to answer the question, really.
 * Hmm, no comment on that for now. I think my proposal is a reasonable answer to the question as written, but I'm still not quite sure what points you're trying to get across. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just trying to understand through dialogue. There are no specific points, it is just a complex philosophy and having another person to discuss the issues helps to clarify meaning. The hope is to use this to improve on the text in both the FAQ and in the article. You probably have some insight that I'm lacking on the subject matter that can come out through this dialogue.Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, I hope this has helped. I’ve marked this article on my list of things to work on, but I probably won’t have time for anything but small changes for a while. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It has helped. Next, I'll type a full draft revision to the FAQ below based on your feedback so that we can have another look. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This quote might help to answer Q4: "There is no single way to do science." - Leigh van Valen
 * In what context would you use it? (That is, what would the quote argue for or illustrate?)
 * I look forward to seeing the new draft. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I put that quote up because it illustrates that there is no absolute scientific prescription that we can describe to the reader in a way that distils it down such that a reader can say - ah-ha, so the scientists did X, which means that they are correct about evolution after all!! Evolution is a complex set of meta-theory with sub-sets of specific theory. The social practice and its influence in evolutionary biology (and science in general) is not something that can be easily addressed and answered in Q4.Thompsma (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision to FAQ 4
This is just a first stab at the revision. Looking forward to comments.Thompsma (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note to let you know that I do have comments, but I want to think about them a bit more before I write them out in full. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds great - looking forward to them. Thought I should insert the text to replace the previous inferior version. We can always go back and edit.Thompsma (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)