Re: Life's Transition
Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:18:13 -0700>While intuitively understandable, this view unreasonably expects that
>science will only work to disprove theories and that anomalous data will
>automatically cause the theory to be discarded. But, this ignores
>scientific testing of hypotheses, and requires that any anomalous data not
>be artifactual. Furthermore, the history of science is replete with
>examples of theories persisting in the face of anomalous evidence. This
>moves us into Kuhn's view of what it takes to cause a paradigm shift.
>
>One of my favorite criticisms of evolution is that it is not falsifiable and
>therefore false.
While in theory falsification is a noble enterprise, no scientist I know
works at falsifying his own theories, which is the only sense in which
falsification has any validity. Scientists as humans bent on the promotion
of their own endeavours work towards "proving", that is, supporting their
own ideas and refuting or falsifying contrary views espoused by others. Now
that does not preclude the possibility that there is an idealist somewhere
who may actually use multiple working hypotheses, or might genuinely
attempt to refute his own ideas, but who is the judge of his objectivity in
the enterprise? Of course none of this is news to you...
Art