The Theory of Spontaneous Moon Spores
Part of an ongoing discussion. A reader named writes:
I thought it might be more appropriate if I make my comment economical and elaborate my central claim, but we can get into the other questions as well, of course, sorry. Didn’t expect you’d be willing to take the time to have the full debate. I appreciate it.
My pleasure. I made the remark: “Indeed, the idea that life can arise from non-life, at this point in the history of science, is not even dignified enough to be called an hypothesis. It is not based on any observation.”
Mr. Toplak answered: “This is simply a false statement.”
My reply was: “If it is simply a false statement, please tell me who has ever observed life arise from non-life?”
His reaction to that question is below. My remarks are in italics.
I meant that the statement as a whole is false, namely the implied claim that an idea without direct empirical support is not even dignified to be called a hypothesis. Speculation and the development of the logical consequences of a cluster of scientific theories are an important part of science. Not observing a thing does not a priori rule it out as a legitimate option. Rather, there could be another theory, explaining the absence of that very thing.
“Or are you claiming that something based on no observation whatsoever is a legitimate scientific hypothesis?”
Yes, actually I am, but only if it’s a legitimate logical consequence of a cluster of scientific theories that are known to work*. We have never observed certain parts of space, but the claim that they are governed by the same laws of physics is a legitimate one. We have never observed the future, but the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow is a legitimate one. We have never observed life forming from non-life, but the claim that this is probable, according to our scientific body of knowledge, is a legitimate one.
*Our life sciences are doing a great job – they are efficient. They work either because of a miracle – at the same time being wrong but they miraculously happen to work – or they work because they are at least to some degree true. If abiogenesis is a extrapolation of supposedly true claims about the world, we should hold that it’s probably true (or, less likely, an anomaly which tells us to revise these suppsedly true claims).
“My point is that we have nothing, not even indirect evidence, which tells us the frequency with which life arises from non-life, or even that it does at all.”
Again, there can be a theory, explaining the lack of evidence. When insisting on this evidence, you are a priori ruling it out.
“We know that life exists on Earth. How did it get here? Either it arose spontaneously here or came from elsewhere. Which of those two hypotheses fits the pattern of life arising we have seen in all non-earthly life forms? Well, neither, because we have never seen a non-Earthly life form, or any evidence, howsoever indirect, that non-Earthly life does exist or even could exist. Neither have we seen any evidence the other way.”
A fictional purely-empirical science would stay agnostic. Actual science draws hypotheses and explicates all the logical consequences of its scientific theories.
“What entity are we postulating in this case who brings forth life from non-life?”
Didn’t mean we postulate anything, just wanted to alert you that you put too much weight solely on evidence.
“It is certainly a legitimate science fictional topic …”
It is not a fictional topic. It is a legitimate scientific inquiry that tries to explain the discrepancy between our scientific body of knowledge and lack of evidence.
“I was not aware that anyone had counted up all possible alternative worldviews to yours or mine.”
The scientific world-view works. It would be pretty absurd if it works, because it is false. Then i’d be a pure miracle that it works. I thinks that its logical consequences are worth considering, at least.
“On what grounds do you assert that life spontaneously emerging from dead matter is coherent at all, much less more coherent an idea than any other?”
Science works with an emergent model of the universe – higher-order things carry properties that their components do not. “Life” is a property, not found in matter, but emerges when we get the right combination of matter. I fail to see why this should necessarily happen only once – theoretically, it could happen a lot of times over the history of our universe. Lack of evidence is not by itself enough to disregard that option, if you have theories that explain that lack.
What is a tenable alternative to this view of life? Will we postulate an allmighty intelligent designer instead? That doesn’t seem like a very “scientific” thing to do. Quite the opposite, given how redundant such an entity seems, according to our current world-view (read: scientific body of knowledge). Is our current world-view necesarrily true? No, but it works very well and the world responds to it. The world behaves in the way “as if” most of our theories were more or less true. Coincidence? Might be.
What alternative is there? Will we, intead of a mechanism that works by chance, postulate some mysterious unique force that gave birth to life?
Well, there is quite a bit to unpack here, and I fear I may not get to it all.
The claim I make is that abiogenesis, also called the theory of spontaneous generation, is a mere speculation, lacking the necessary property to be dignified with the title of “hypothesis.”
Flying to my dictionary, I see hypothesis defined as “a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
My claim is twofold (1) abiogensis is not a proposed explanation (2) it is not made on the basis of limited evidence, since it is based on no evidence at all.
Your claim is that there is sufficient evidence to call abiogenesis an hypothesis. I had expected you to produce the evidence, to make some reference to an observation or experiment appearing in some credible peer reviewed publication to support the claim. Instead I am given an argument by analogy followed by a theological argument which is on a topic not necessarily related to this one.
First things first:
“I meant that the statement as a whole is false, namely the implied claim that an idea without direct empirical support is not even dignified to be called a hypothesis. “
But that is not what I said. I did not say ‘an idea without direct empirical support is not even dignified to be called a hypothesis’.
I said that THIS idea, spontaneous generation, was not dignified enough to be called a hypothesis, since there is neither direct observation of such a thing (no one has seen life arise spontaneously from non-life) nor is there indirect evidence that such a thing has ever happened, nor is there an observed mechanism by which inanimate, that is, non-self-organizing matter, could have the power to organize itself into living, that is, self-organizing matter, nor is there a hypothetical mechanism which could do so.
By way of sharp contrast, the existence of black holes by definition can never be observed by light waves reflected from it, but the limitations of the speed of light and the existence of gravity — both of which are observable — can lead to an hypothesis that any body large enough would of necessity have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light.
Once a speculative idea has some firm grounding in known laws of nature, we can call it a hypothesis.
From this, other properties, such as charge and spin, can be deduced, not to mention the existence of an accretion disk, with resulting xray discharged caused by tidal effects destroying infalling matter — which can be, and have been observed. Once the hypothesis has at least some confirmatory evidence, we can call it a theory.
So: in no sense is my sentence false. You merely took it to be saying something stronger or more general than I said. I did not say nothing not directly observed is not dignified enough to be called a hypothesis.
I said that THIS idea has nothing whatever behind it aside from a circular argument: life currently exists, therefore life must have started. So far, so good. If it must have started, it must have started because nonlife has the power to produce life spontaneously.
Well, there is no observational evidence to support the claim. I have never seen non-life spontaneously organize itself to form life, nor have you, nor has anyone. Nor is there any indirect evidence.
In fact, aside from the fact that life is currently here on Earth, and so far has been found nowhere else, not even a trace, that leaves us with exactly no information to work with either to support or to deny the speculation.
“Speculation and the development of the logical consequences of a cluster of scientific theories are an important part of science. “
Irrelevant. My claim is that this speculation is not an hypothesis due to a dearth of any evidence, direct or indirect. I did not claim it was not a speculation, nor did I claim that speculation is not an important part of science. Please stick to the topic.
“Not observing a thing does not a priori rule it out as a legitimate option.”
Irrelevant, bordering on a strawman argument. I do not rule out abiogenesis a priori, but a posteriori: I examine sea and sky and do not see microbes or mites arising from dewdrops or dustmotes. I look to see if any evidence supports it. None does. I look to see if it a reasonable assumption within the framework of known laws. It is not. Therefore it is a speculation, not a hypothesis.
“Rather, there could be another theory, explaining the absence of that very thing.”
Not if Occam’s Razor holds sway. Not if we wish to avoid special pleading.
I can speculate that Romulan spaceships with tractor beams are towing the Moon in a circular path around the earth rather than the spacewarp caused by the gravitational mass, and if then asked why no one has seen the Romulan space ships, I can speculate that the ships are equipped with cloaking devices to render them invisible. This is using a second speculation to cover the inadequacy of the first. It is not an example of sound scientific reasoning.
“We have never observed certain parts of space, but the claim that they are governed by the same laws of physics is a legitimate one. We have never observed the future, but the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow is a legitimate one. We have never observed life forming from non-life, but the claim that this is probable, according to our scientific body of knowledge, is a legitimate one.”
Your analogy cuts against your argument.
The idea that the laws of nature are consistent throughout all space is a metaphysical principle, not a scientific observation, and must be assumed in order for any scientific thinking to be valid at all. It is a priori. Your first example is a case where, by definition, no direct observation is required.
Moreover, while we have never observed all parts of spacetime, we have observed that part open to our senses, and only the a priori assumption that the various appearances and changes of nature are governed by coherent natural laws allow us to investigate such laws. So, here we use an a priori metaphysical principle to conclude that which is not observed acts the same as that which is observed, unless some special local condition intervenes.
Your second example is even stronger an argument against your position.
All men have seen the sunrise a plethora of times, and even the blind know the secondary and indirect effects of sunrises. They are known to exist. That the sun will rise tomorrow is a clear application of a common principle of common sense, namely, that things happen for a reason. Were the sun not to rise, this would be due to some special local condition (such as invisible Romulan spaceships using tractor beams to arrest the rotation of the planet).
“Our life sciences are doing a great job – they are efficient. They work either because of a miracle – at the same time being wrong but they miraculously happen to work – or they work because they are at least to some degree true. If abiogenesis is a extrapolation of supposedly true claims about the world, we should hold that it’s probably true (or, less likely, an anomaly which tells us to revise these suppsedly true claims).”
I am afraid I cannot made sense of this paragraph.
It looks as if you are venturing to put forth a pragmatic theory of epistemology, a theory of what constitutes true knowledge.
The appeal to pragmatism cuts against your argument. If you and I saw life spontaneously arising from non-life as often as we seen flowers bloom in the spring or tadpoles arise from frogs, then a pragmatic conclusion would be to say that there is something, some sort of life-germ or life-cause or life-making power present in certain bits of inanimate matter, and, presumably, not in other bits.
Science is not justified in its conclusions because “it works” — whatever that means.
Empiricism is a deduction from metaphysical principles of the nature of the sense impressions and the a priori rule of reason that nothing causes nothing, and that nothing arises without a sufficient cause.
If I see the sun, with I see truly or not. If I see truly, it is because the sun is real and impresses itself on my senses to create the sense impression in my awareness. If I see not truly, then I am looking at an image, or at an hallucination or a dream. In that case, by the same deduction, there must be a cause of the falsehood, such as a cunning mirror, or vapors from brain chemicals, or the mischievous god Morpheus putting images in my sleeping soul.
In either case, a rational process of seeing which causes apply when allow us to distinguish true from false.
” “Life” is a property, not found in matter, but …”
An aside: Odd that a living being would put the word “life” in scare quotes, as if there were no such thing. But to continue…
” “Life” is a property, not found in matter, but emerges when we get the right combination of matter.”
An interesting assertion. Please provide the evidence to back it up.
You see, the body of a dead man who smothers in his sleep consists of the exact same atoms of nerve and muscle, brain and flesh and bone, in the exact same positions they occupied before death. The process of breathing stops, but, once he is dead and we remove the strangle-wire, nothing prevents the process from continuing, if it is merely a chemical process.
So, at first glance, the idea that the combination of atoms in some correct structure is what differentiates life from non life is the opposite of what we observe. But I am open to contradiction. Show me your evidence.
Show me the right combination of matter that can combine under its own power to spontaneously produce life. If water had this property, we would see midges and worms emerge from water each time we saw a rainfall. If fire had this property, each time we lit a fire, snakes, or at least bacteria, would crawl forth.
Show me. Where is the evidence?
I will be generous. Show me how you, by mixing inanimate chemicals and striking them with a lightningbolt or something, can generation life from non-life. Once I see the thing is possible with human intervention, we can discuss whether it is possible without human intervention.
Show me. Where is the example of manmade life?
“Again, there can be a theory, explaining the lack of evidence. When insisting on this evidence, you are a priori ruling it out..”
In this case, I am making a simple statement that the speculation lacks any evidence to support it, or, for that matter, to deny it. Abiogenesis is simply a blank assertion.
I propose a simple test: instead of saying life arose spontaneously from non-life, examine the theory that life dropped down from moon-spores from the moon. I submit that every single bit of evidence you can provide which supports the theory of spontaneous generation is equally weighty in the balance scales of cold reason to support the theory of moon-spores.
Let us try an example of my test:
“What is a tenable alternative to the moon spore view of life? … What alternative is there? Will we, instead of a mechanism that works by moon-spores, postulate some mysterious unique force of spontaneous chance that gave birth to life?”
Do you see the problem with the argument as currently formulated?
I will close with the observation that, each time I asked you a direct question, you answered either elliptically or not at all. This is not a good sign.
“Will we postulate an allmighty intelligent designer instead? That doesn’t seem like a very “scientific” thing to do. Quite the opposite, given how redundant such an entity seems, according to our current world-view (read: scientific body of knowledge). Is our current world-view necessarily true? No, but it works very well and the world responds to it. The world behaves in the way “as if” most of our theories were more or less true. Coincidence? Might be.”
This tacked-on argument bringing up the tail is “God-worship is false ergo Science-worship is true.” This is both an illogical argument, and irrelevant.
It is illogical because it poses a false dichotomy. In this case, there are four options: (1) the Creator created a universe where one of the laws of nature is that life arises spontaneously from non-life; (2) the Creator created a universe where the laws of nature do not allow life to arise spontaneously from non-life; (3) there is no Creator, and the universe happens to be one in which one of the laws of nature is that life arises spontaneously from non-life; and (4) there is no Creator, and the universe happens to be one where the laws of nature do not allow life to arise spontaneously from non-life.
In order to present a true dichotomy, the choice must exhaust the cases: A or not-A with no third option possible. In such a case, this would be a philosophical and not a scientific argument: that argument being that spontaneous generation is true because no other possible origin of life is logically coherent. If that is your argument, sir, you have yet to make it. When I asked you who has numbered each and every possible other origin theory of life, you simply failed to answer the question. What about panspermian diffusion?
It is irrelevant because this is not a theological discussion. We can discuss that later if you like. We are talking science now.
It is an argument for another day, but I would like to remark that the scientific worldview is Christian, invented by Christians, and it makes no sense (read: upon examination of its roots, it becomes incoherent) outside of the Christian worldview. Absent God, one cannot explain why the universe is open to examination by human reason. One cannot justify any of the foundational metaphysical assumptions on which all physics, and indeed all scientific reasoning, rests.
An atheist can do science, to be sure. He just cannot explain how it works, or why it works.
“Didn’t mean we postulate anything, just wanted to alert you that you put too much weight solely on evidence.”
You are saying that, when discussing empirical science, I am placing too much weight on empiricism? This comment should be answered with mockery rather than rebuttal.
I will show restraint, but merely content myself with the comment that, with all due respect, your view of science is mistaken.
Allow me to explain:
The natural sciences are based on observation either direct or indirect. Science, by definition, is a posteriori, that is, knowledge that proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
All a posteriori knowledge is contingent, that is, it happens to be so, but depends on the conditions that make it so. Where the conditions different, things would be otherwise.
You are, in effect, claiming science is a priori, that is, knowledge that proceeds from purely logical deduction from first principles rather than from observation or experience.
All a priori knowledge is necessary, that is, it cannot be other than as it is, but must be the case in all times, places, and under all conditions. A priori knowledge is independent of specific facts.
Pure math, for example, is a priori. A blindfolded man in a straitjacket sitting in an armchair in a dark basement can do math. No observation is needed for conformation. The deductions of math are the same in all universes.
Our blind man in the basement cannot do astronomy or physics, biology or chemistry. They depend on observation for confirmation. The specific behaviors and measured periods of stars and planets in motion, the laws governing the motion of bodies and the transmission of energies, the look and behavior of earthly animals and planets, and the specific arrangement of our periodical table and the behaviors of molecules in the aggregate cannot be deduced from first principle, but must be observed. They are true only in our universe.
If you are making an a priori argument for the spontaneous generation of life from non-life, you are doing philosophy, not science. In fact, judging from your closing remark, you are doing theology.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
