A Discussion of Evolutionary Theory

[Makalakumu]

Here is a more indepth primer of Evolutionary Psychology written by two founders of the field.

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the hallmarks of post-darwinism has been the application of genetics to the field. When scientists studied genetics, they found mobile elements, HERV, that had the real possability to effect large change in organisms over a short amount of time. Some scientists have compared the driving force behind this process to a feedback loop constantly monitoring itself. Others say that this is just another form of "the man behind the curtain". Regardless of the arguments, horizontal transmission of HERV does explain things like sub-speciation...data is accumulating.

 

[heretic888]

Here is a good primer on Evolutionary Psychology. This field, I believe, is in its infancy. However, the assertion that there is no research to back its claims is incorrect.

With all due respect, I'd highly suggest actually reading some of the articles submitted by evolutionary psychologists.

The majority of them come off more as philosophy papers than psychology research articles. Typical of these is a paper I read a few months back which asserted that 'teleological' thinking was adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors, with the only research being cited was a few vague references to Piaget (who in no sense was an evolutionary psychologist). No concrete examples were given as to how 'teleology' might have been adaptive to our hominid ancestors, certainly not any backed up with evidence.

Those that do provide actual research generally follow the following format (and this is from another paper I read a while back): 1) regarding certain moral dilemmas (such as incest) participants demonstrate an almost automatic repulsion which they cannot logically explain, 2) therefore, moral reasoning (a la Kohlberg and Gilligan) doesn't exist or is irrelevant, and 3) our moral emotions evolved because they proved adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors.

Of course, no evidence is provided showing these "moral emotions" as being adaptive for our ancestors. It is just assumed a priori that they must be (or else why would we have them, right?). This is philosophy, not science. A philosophy of Universal Darwinism.

In all honesty, Freud had about as much evidence for his claims as most of these guys do. This is why psychologists outside of evolutionary psychology kind of treat it as everybody's weird uncle that we all make fun of (by contrast, you won't see biopsychologists and social psychologists taking such shots at each other --- even though their fields make diametrically opposite claims), part of the reason being that evolutionary psychologists tend to make grandiose and narcissistic claims like how their field will "unify" psychology and some such nonsense. This always reaks of academic hubris.

By contrast, guys outside of psychology (typically biologists and chemists) love evolutionary psychology. Why? Simple, because it tells them that they're the ones that are right, not these silly cognitivists, structuralists, humanists, and psychoanalysts.

If you think I'm BS-ing any of this, feel free to ask Feisty Mouse. She's an actual psychologist, whereas I'm just a lowly undergrad student with an above-average brain.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Here is a nice little list of transitional fossils that have been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Very nice.

However, I should point out that post-Darwinism doesn't claim that transitional forms don't exist. Merely that, in some cases, they aren't needed to explain macroevolutionary developments.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

An experiment is one form of verification in the scientific method. Some "experiments" do not have the classical test tube look, but it does not negate their power.

Not to go off-topic here, but I agree with this assessment 100%.

One of the general misunderstandings many people (including a good number of scientists themselves) have about the scientific method is that it can only be applied to study physical or 'naturalistic' phenomena. This is flatly untrue.

Any phenomena that can be replicatedly studied (be it an emotional response, a chemical reaction, or a fossil) can be put under the banner of scientific process. Test tubes are not required, just verification and falsifiability.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

With all due respect, I'd highly suggest actually reading some of the articles submitted by evolutionary psychologists.

The majority of them come off more as philosophy papers than psychology research articles. Typical of these is a paper I read a few months back which asserted that 'teleological' thinking was adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors, with the only research being cited was a few vague references to Piaget (who in no sense was an evolutionary psychologist). No concrete examples were given as to how 'teleology' might have been adaptive to our hominid ancestors, certainly not any backed up with evidence.

Those that do provide actual research generally follow the following format (and this is from another paper I read a while back): 1) regarding certain moral dilemmas (such as incest) participants demonstrate an almost automatic repulsion which they cannot logically explain, 2) therefore, moral reasoning (a la Kohlberg and Gilligan) doesn't exist or is irrelevant, and 3) our moral emotions evolved because they proved adaptive for our evolutionary ancestors.

Of course, no evidence is provided showing these "moral emotions" as being adaptive for our ancestors. It is just assumed a priori that they must be (or else why would we have them, right?). This is philosophy, not science. A philosophy of Universal Darwinism.

In all honesty, Freud had about as much evidence for his claims as most of these guys do. This is why psychologists outside of evolutionary psychology kind of treat it as everybody's weird uncle that we all make fun of (by contrast, you won't see biopsychologists and social psychologists taking such shots at each other --- even though their fields make diametrically opposite claims), part of the reason being that evolutionary psychologists tend to make grandiose and narcissistic claims like how their field will "unify" psychology and some such nonsense. This always reaks of academic hubris.

By contrast, guys outside of psychology (typically biologists and chemists) love evolutionary psychology. Why? Simple, because it tells them that they're the ones that are right, not these silly cognitivists, structuralists, humanists, and psychoanalysts.

If you think I'm BS-ing any of this, feel free to ask Feisty Mouse. She's an actual psychologist, whereas I'm just a lowly undergrad student with an above-average brain.

Laterz.

I've read some good papers and some bad. Its the same with any field. However, I think the primary principles of EP are sound.

Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.

Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.

Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler that it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry.

Principle 4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.

Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.

You are right about biologists and chemists, though. I have a hard time seeing it any other way.

I didn't intent to gank this thread, sorry. In fact, there is another thread on EP located here.

 

[Makalakumu]

However, I should point out that post-Darwinism doesn't claim that transitional forms don't exist. Merely that, in some cases, they aren't needed to explain macroevolutionary developments.

True, but pointing out that the do exist raises interesting questions about how well some post-darwinian theories explain what is actually found in nature. The existance of transition fossils seems to indicate a greater amount of time then some post-darwinians theories would account. Basically, the way it breaks down is that some people are saying that evolution can happen in a quickfire manner, but transition fossils imply more time.

 

[mrhnau]

Protein folding, for instance, is too complex to be recreated in the laboratory. The only studies that can even begin to probe its depths, are comparative analysis.

Really? Dang it I'll have to tell the whole field to stop studying it then.

I've done some work in that area, and thats not really the case. Alot of computer work is being done to understand folding nature. Comparative analysis can only be done in one circumstance : you have something to compare with! that statement alone alone seems to mandate there is some kind of baseline for study.

Yes, it is difficult to study each individual atom, but macro features are easily detectable using techniques such as CD, EPR and Fluoresence spectroscopy. Well, relatively easy Its actually a fast progressing field. There are annual competitions to see who can accurately predict the tertiary structure of some proteins based on primary sequence. Quite exciting stuff. Its not 100% accurate, but its really progressing! Alot is already understood, and in the next few years much more will be. One of the limitations currently is computational power (at least in some of my projects). Stinks when you want to run a simulation and it takes a few years on the finest supercomputers to finish. Especially if you end up with an invalid results. Some of the physical techniques evolved in the past 10-20 years, so they still have alot of work to do. Some exciting studies already completed.

Wish I had more time to comment on some of the things written here. Gotta head on vacation though. Keep the strand going, I've got a list of things I'd love to comment on... btw, this is pretty much my field of study.

MrH

 

[heretic888]

One of the hallmarks of post-darwinism has been the application of genetics to the field. When scientists studied genetics, they found mobile elements, HERV, that had the real possability to effect large change in organisms over a short amount of time. Some scientists have compared the driving force behind this process to a feedback loop constantly monitoring itself. Others say that this is just another form of "the man behind the curtain". Regardless of the arguments, horizontal transmission of HERV does explain things like sub-speciation...data is accumulating.

Which is essentially what I said before (although you certainly seem to be more knowledgeable of the particulars than I). Namely, that the principal reason post-Darwinism seems to be a minority is because of its youth (all of 20 years). As data continues to accumulate over the coming years, I'd expect to see something of a paradigm shift in biological principles.

In a very real way, post-Darwinism seems to correlate with the development of post-formal cognitive research. Formal-operational cognition (much like traditional neo-Darwinism) assumes a relatively small number of broad, all-encompassing principles, linear causal relationships, logical absolutism, and related structures. Post-formal cognition, by contrast, orients toward what Ken Wilber called 'network-logic', embraces relativistic and dialectical thinking, understands much of what we call 'truth' is bound within certain circumstantial contexts, and realizes causal relationships often resemble nets or lattices more than they do straight lines.

I find much of these correlational developments in different fields to be fascinating. Post-formal cognition and multiple intelligences theory in psychology, post-Darwinism in biology, systems theory in ecology, M-theory in physics, and post-modernism in philosophy all seem to share broad, correlating principles (often such ideas as hiearchical novel emergence, network systems, dialectical co-development, relativistic and contextual logic, and so on).

Very fascinating.

 

[mrhnau]

Not to go off-topic here, but I agree with this assessment 100%.

One of the general misunderstandings many people (including a good number of scientists themselves) have about the scientific method is that it can only be applied to study physical or 'naturalistic' phenomena. This is flatly untrue.

Any phenomena that can be replicatedly studied (be it an emotional response, a chemical reaction, or a fossil) can be put under the banner of scientific process. Test tubes are not required, just verification and falsifiability.

Laterz. :asian:

"Hard" science would dislike that statement. They also dislike the term "social science", because there is generally nothing truly scientific about it, if you use the basest version of what the scientific process is. There is no such thing as true reproducability when dealing with humans. Put the same man in the same circumstances he may react quite differently. Too many variables not even dependant on your expirement (did it rain yesterday, did his mother die a month ago, did his g/f leave him, did he have a nice lunch, ect).

A fossil can not be repeated. Multiple finds can exist, I agree with that, but much of the evolutionary tree is based of single fossils, fragments of bones (particularly in the case of man).

MrH

 

[Makalakumu]

"Hard" science would dislike that statement. They also dislike the term "social science", because there is generally nothing truly scientific about it, if you use the basest version of what the scientific process is. There is no such thing as true reproducability when dealing with humans. Put the same man in the same circumstances he may react quite differently. Too many variables not even dependant on your expirement (did it rain yesterday, did his mother die a month ago, did his g/f leave him, did he have a nice lunch, ect).

This does not mean that the social sciences can turn out meaningful predictions. It just means that the statistical mathematics used to show significance are more complex...

A fossil can not be repeated. Multiple finds can exist, I agree with that, but much of the evolutionary tree is based of single fossils, fragments of bones (particularly in the case of man).

A single fossil is never enough to alter what is known as "the fossil record". Independent verification is accomplished by finding other specimens. Only when this occurs do serious paleontologists take certain findings seriously. Often, this can take years of work and tons of laborious labor...ie lots of grubbing in the dirt.

 

[heretic888]

True, but pointing out that the do exist raises interesting questions about how well some post-darwinian theories explain what is actually found in nature. The existance of transition fossils seems to indicate a greater amount of time then some post-darwinians theories would account.

The post-Darwinian theories I have come across do not make the assertion that there is some singular mechanism to replace natural selection as an explanatory principle. Rather, the overall attitude seems to be one that there are several (perhaps dozens) of mechanisms at work, of which Darwin's natural selection and sexual selection are but two.

The general critique, however, does seem to gravitate around natural selection being an inadequate explanation for macroevolution and speciation. However, this doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of transitional forms, as several additional mechanisms are argued by varying theorists (some of which would result in gradual change and some of which would not).

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

"Hard" science would dislike that statement. They also dislike the term "social science", because there is generally nothing truly scientific about it, if you use the basest version of what the scientific process is.

It is precisely such academic hubris and self-confirming biases that science works to overcome. More often than not, many scientists (especially the "hard" scientists) collapse the scientific method with philosophies like naturalism and materialism. Their concerns are primarily ideological, not methodological.

There is no such thing as a "basest version" of the scientific method. The scientific method is a process of injunction or social practice which reveals datum or information of any kind, and which is subsequently subject to falsification or verification. In other words, if somebody else can hypothetically do what you did to find out what you did, then its science.

There is no such thing as true reproducability when dealing with humans. Put the same man in the same circumstances he may react quite differently. Too many variables not even dependant on your expirement (did it rain yesterday, did his mother die a month ago, did his g/f leave him, did he have a nice lunch, ect).

No offense, but its fairly obvious your actual experience in the "social sciences" is pretty close to nil.

In psychology alone (which, depending on which sub-discipline you are referring to, may or may not fall under "social science"), there are a rather hefty number of experimental paradigms, of which your rather poor within-subjects design example is one. Depending on what it is you're attempting to study, any number of paradigms could be efficacious. In fact, I can't think of any study worth its salt that doesn't engage in multiple experimental procedures (often with different samples) to acquire data.

And, like upnorthkyosa pointed out, this isn't even getting into the statistical analysis and subsequent inferential interpretation of the data. That's a whole damn science in and of itself.

I should also point out that, based on the reasoning you used above, there is no "true reproducability" among any complex animal. Truth be told, even the same micro-organism might not react the same way in the same circumstances (which would be a poor experimental design as that organism has already experienced an identical stimulus). Its essentially a non-argument.

Replication, in science, refers to experimental paradigms. It does not refer to results among the exact same subjects. In fact, you really shouldn't be using the same subjects over and over again. Its poor design.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Now on to some links of interest to the discussion.

- The following is from a Metanexus Institute discussion entitled Human Creativity and Evolutionary Discontinuity Revisited.

- The following is a paper entitled Outlines For A Post-Darwinian Biology

- The following is from the e-book Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World entitled Chapter 19: Postdarwinism.

- The following is a paper entitled Organisms can be proud to have been their own designers.

Enjoy. :asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

One thing that strikes me about Post-Darwinism is that so much of it seems to be about retooling the idea of "natural selection".

Classical natural selection stated that the environment selected certain organisms who were the best adapted. This caused small changes in the morphology of populations. Over time, these small changes built up and eventually turned into big changes.

When Eldridge and Gould published their theory of pucntuated equilibria in 1973, the paradigm was challenged. They said that constant change was not observed in the fossil record. Rather, great amounts of change over short periods of time rightly described the data. "Natural selection" wasn't really addressed here, only the time component.

Now, "natural selection" is being addressed. Post Darwinism, IMO, is about asking what exactly happens with "natural selection." Is it a singular phenomenon or is it composed of many mechanisms genomic change. Either way, the simple explanation presented in classical Darwinism still holds...the environment selects individuals that are best adapted.

Deviations exist. For instance, one theory I read about stated that the genome selected traits to fit the environment via a feedback loop. "It" accomplished this by horizontally transmitting endogenic retroviruses formed from junk DNA. This transmission of traits incorporated new DNA into a "host" and the subsequent morphologic was expressed vertically. Ultimately, this would result in the creation of not only genetic/phylogenic diversity, but speciation.

 

[goshawk]

*puts down bucket of feces*

Damnit goshawk... do you have any idea the amount of monet I spent on laxitives?

Oops. Sorry 'bout that. ::grin:: I guess you'll just have to decide to evolve yourself into a better money-maker, huh?

Oh wait, that's impossible, ergo evolution is phony, PHONY I tell you! We should all just sit down and read Genesis. (I've actually had this argument directed at me, once.)

And yeah, thanks. I knew there was a more interesting example of redundant traits than back-and-shoulder issues, but I couldn't for the life of me remember.

 

[goshawk]

Well, that and the fact that incest is, you know...yucky.

::grin:: Probably because those with the tendency to want to make it with their sister or brother got bred out of existence thanks to those self-same mutations, so all we have left are those who wrinkle their noses at the thought.

...Well, mostly what we have left are those who wrinkle their noses at the thought. =P

 

[mrhnau]

There is no such thing as a "basest version" of the scientific method. The scientific method is a process of injunction or social practice which reveals datum or information of any kind, and which is subsequently subject to falsification or verification. In other words, if somebody else can hypothetically do what you did to find out what you did, then its science.

For clarity, lets look at a nice definition of the scientific method:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

So, according the last step, repeatability is an important step. Some fun expirements with magnetic monopoles that was quite entertaining. They predicted an event that would statistically happen once during the lifetime of the universe. Low and behold, they were able to detect it! Was this science? By what I refer to as the basest version of the scientific method, no. No possible (or at least predicted) repeatability. My definition of basest version is how strictly you interpret the method. Lets look at why I think you might not be able to reproduce using psychology.

Lets say some traumatic event occurs, someone gets fired from their job. How does this person deal with the situation? What types of emotions? As with all humans, we have alot of data that influences our reaction, ranging from current financial status (have cash handy?), family status, job history (been fired before? first job?), age, education, current job market, family history (dad unemployed alot? parents teach you how to deal with harsh events? poor growing up? family always in debt?), current needs (wife need alot of cash to spoil? just bought a new car/house? other debt? have kids?), job fired from (CEO of big company? McD's?). This is a short list Needless to say, many things influence how we react to a unique situation. So, can there -ever- be true reproducibility? Can you ever have a man in the same situation, dealing with the same circumstances? Want to make some general statements? He will be sad? Not always. Maybe a bad circumstance in past job. So, just with this circumstance, unless you gather alot of external data and learn alot about him personally, it would be difficult to make specific statements about how he would deal with the event. If you chose to make general statements, it seems alot less like a science. It would be sort of like Newton stating the Law of Gravity like "stuff falls down most of the time".

Read below regarding measurables...


Here is a good definition of Theory:

In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

No offense, but its fairly obvious your actual experience in the "social sciences" is pretty close to nil.

In psychology alone (which, depending on which sub-discipline you are referring to, may or may not fall under "social science"), there are a rather hefty number of experimental paradigms, of which your rather poor within-subjects design example is one. Depending on what it is you're attempting to study, any number of paradigms could be efficacious. In fact, I can't think of any study worth its salt that doesn't engage in multiple experimental procedures (often with different samples) to acquire data.

And, like upnorthkyosa pointed out, this isn't even getting into the statistical analysis and subsequent inferential interpretation of the data. That's a whole damn science in and of itself.

I should also point out that, based on the reasoning you used above, there is no "true reproducability" among any complex animal. Truth be told, even the same micro-organism might not react the same way in the same circumstances (which would be a poor experimental design as that organism has already experienced an identical stimulus). Its essentially a non-argument.

Replication, in science, refers to experimental paradigms. It does not refer to results among the exact same subjects. In fact, you really shouldn't be using the same subjects over and over again. Its poor design.

Almost all of hard science deals heavily w/ statistics, so thats a moot point.

Replication with same subjects is indeed poor design. Allow me to expain part of where we will differ. How do you measure some psycological or social trait? Lets look at one of my personal examples. Went to the hospital a few years ago with some pain. Doctor asked "On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is your pain with 10 being the worst". Is this not totally subjective? What feels like an 8? What feels like a 2? Would a 2 for you be a 2 for me? Its needed for the doctor, I understand that, but the "measurement" of pain in this instance is quite subjective. Can you call something that requires answers that are subjective a science? All one can measure is often what someone says. As humans, we have the ability to lie (protection of loved ones, embarassment, forgetting, repression). So, you ask someone "how do you feel" after some traumatic event, will you get an honest answer? Can you? You need a measurable in order to use statistics, so are these measurables often subjective by nature? From personal observations, the way you ask a question or even the time you ask a question can prompt a quite different response. Would you qualify this as a scientific process? What would you define as a consistent measurable and how could you possibly obtain one? IMHO, it would need to be almost purely biological, since as humans we can not be totally objective (at least IMO). At that point, we start leaving social sciences, and start approaching biology. As with many sciences and other fields, the lines have started to get fuzzy. Makes definitions a bit harder, but thats fine

We will differ on definition on whats a science. Thats fine. Won't matter with regards to our careers... Just agree to disagree

In any regards, macro-evolution (the point of this post?) lacks repeatability. It seems to fit the definition of Theory posted above. Smaller aspects can be analyzed directly, and I've worked with some organisms where micro-evolution and even some macro trait evolution can be directly observed. Evolution starts having problems when discussing origins. There are a few other sticking points. I'd be much more interested in going along that line of discussion than social sciences. And no, my experience w/ social sciences is not nil. My exposure to the field has been mostly negative, at least with regard to how I view the field. Thats for a different discussion, with this one trying to stick with the theory of evolution. If you want, we can start another thread to get into that one.

MrH

 

[michaeledward]

For clarity, lets look at a nice definition of the scientific method:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

So, according the last step, repeatability is an important step. Some fun expirements with magnetic monopoles that was quite entertaining.

Your definition of the scientific method is interesting, to say the least. I don't think any scientist would claim the 'invent' anything.

Try this:

In an amicus curiae to the United States Supreme Court for Edwards v Aguillard (1986), a diverse group of scientists, for a short time, managed to agree upon a definition of what the nature of science includes.

"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.

The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an ever increasing body of observations that give information about underlying 'facts'. Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method invovles the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that ight present a natural explaination for those facts.

An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain.

An explanatory principle that by its nature cannont be tested is outside the realm of science."

​

Also, your step 5, which says 'no discrepencies', is no where near what science is about. Science is not the attempt to prove a theory. Science is about defining what takes place in the world. If a theory fails, scientists learn and move forward.

 

[mrhnau]

Your definition of the scientific method is interesting, to say the least. I don't think any scientist would claim the 'invent' anything.

Not my definition, just one I found. Has the basic merits of what the scientific method is. If you want to quibble over specific verbage, thats fine.

Scientist do in fact invent thing, or at least as far as we can observe. check out the periodic table. Many of the elements toward the end are not naturally occuring, at least to our knowledge. Many chemical compounds have been invented that have not been observed natually. Guess it depends on what you mean by invent, but thats another topic. The verbage used is not dealing with "inventing things" though, just devising a hypothesis. A scientist does this all the time.

Try this:



In an amicus curiae to the United States Supreme Court for Edwards v Aguillard (1986), a diverse group of scientists, for a short time, managed to agree upon a definition of what the nature of science includes.

"Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena.


The grist for the mill of scientific inquiry is an ever increasing body of observations that give information about underlying 'facts'. Facts are the properties of natural phenomena. The scientific method invovles the rigorous, methodical testing of principles that ight present a natural explaination for those facts.

An explanatory principle is not to be confused with the data it seeks to explain.

An explanatory principle that by its nature cannont be tested is outside the realm of science."


​

Also, your step 5, which says 'no discrepencies', is no where near what science is about. Science is not the attempt to prove a theory. Science is about defining what takes place in the world. If a theory fails, scientists learn and move forward.

Nice definition, and I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. They do not define the scientific method though, rather what science is.

The "no discrepencies" comment... your statement seems mildly contradictory. Yes, science attempts to define what takes place in the world, and they do so by formulating a theory (hypothesis) and attempting to prove/disprove. If you dislike the term "no discrepencies", then when would a theory ever fail? You need the capability of disproving a theory, otherwise the whole process is pointless. The discrepencies are the basis of what moves science forward and keep it interesting IMO. btw, I'm coming from more of a physical scientist point of view.