# Side Comments on Guided Mutations

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-guided-mutations/16436>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [January 10, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-guided-mutations/16436 "2024-01-10T20:42:04Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 117

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2024, 8:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-guided-mutations/16436/117 "2024-01-22T20:27:19Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Then what’s the point in having them at all?

“Them” being what, _ **exactly** _? There are major vocabulary issues here.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> What does “understanding [some natural phenomenon]” mean, if it does not mean being able to predict outcomes from outsets?

What’s an “outset” in this context?

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> …refuse entirely to present models whence testable predictions that might conflict with the data can be logically derived to begin with.

The empirical predictions come from mechanistic hypotheses. In biology, models help in refining and testing hypotheses, but they are not at the center.

The statement “All models are wrong, but some are useful” isn’t a joke. For example, I can model population genetics by blindly drawing marbles if I don’t understand basic probability. **That’s precisely why Behe crows about having a model, and never mentions any hypothesis.**

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Perhaps this is a bias I adopted with my field. That a scientific theory “works” is, to me, synonymous with it accurately matching data without assuming them as given first.

You started by defining “hypothesis” as untested, which is utterly wrong with no gray whatsoever, so now you’re jumping to “theory”? Oh boy…

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> I _genuinely_ understand no philosophy of science wherein the rendering of predictions is not the central point and purpose of all scientific theory crafting.

The _ **hypotheses** _ are crafted to be mechanistic and to render testable, empirical predictions.

Very few hypotheses become theories, which is what we call them after they have a long track record of successful predictions, with iterative modifications less “crafted” and more responses to the data, with far more craft going into designing clever experiments that rigorously test those predictions. I’ve only had one epiphany in my career relating to “crafting” a hypothesis, but I assure you it was entirely driven by thinking about and discussing the bewildering data that I had produced by testing my initial (wrong) hypothesis.

I don’t know what your field is, but I’m afraid you’re not really speaking the language of biology here. If the abstract or specific-aims page of your US NIH or NSF grant application started with, _**“I (we) have crafted a theory,”**_ few reviewers would bother reading further before chucking it in the triage (unreviewed, bottom-half) pile.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/side-comments-on-guided-mutations/16436)._