[...]
>>SJ>1.4.2. MANY BIOLOGISTS PAST AND PRESENT HAVE NOT FULLY ACCEPTED
>>>DARWIN'S THEORY
>
>bh>There is a danger that this might turn into something analogous
>>to an argument from authority. Look for an expert that says
>>what you hope for. Then take comfort in this without looking
>>further. I'm not saying Steve is promoting this, just that
>>there is a tendency for some to take this sort of view.
>
>Aw. I thought we were back on first name terms, Brian! Seriously, I
>think it is important at the outset in a series on "Difficulties of
>Darwinsim", to make the point that many biologists have major problems
>with the dominant Neo-Darwinian theory. Especially since Darwinists
>do their best to downplay it, and the general public may not be
>aware of it.
>
>I am completely unrepentant that this part of the series is an
>argument from authority. Darwinists use the argument from authority
>routinely-their works are full of claims that "all reputable biologists
>accept evolution", etc. As Johnson points out, appeal to authority
>is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism:
>
Let me try to clarify my position. What I said was that there
was a danger of this turning into something like an argument
from authority. But the information you present does not
*have* to be presented as an argument from authority. Frankly,
I think the information is very useful and should be of
interest to anyone wanting to learn more about the evolution/
creation debate. Just as they should also be interested in
knowing that most scientists today accept as a matter of
fact that evolution has occurred. This is useful background
information but should never be presented as an argument
from authority. "These guys believe evolution is a fact,
so should you." So what? Most scientists believed the
earth stood still in Galileo's day. But let us also note that
many scientists continued to seriously doubt Copernicus for a
long time, well over 100 years.
SJ quoting PJ:==
>"The Framework's [Science Framework for California public schools,
>California State Board of Education, 1990] most constructive
>recommendation is that teachers and textbook writers should avoid
>terminology that implies that scientific judgments are a matter of
>subjective preference or vote-counting. Students should never be told
>that "many scientists" think this or that. Science is not decided by
>vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that "scientists
>believe." Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of
>evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and
>objective reasoning.... Show students that nothing in science is
>decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or
>because that is the way it has always been done (tradition). The
>Framework immediately contradicts that message, however, by
>defining "evolution" only vaguely, as "change through time." A
>vaguely defined concept cannot be tested by observation and
>objective reasoning. The Framework then urges us to believe in this
>vague concept because so many scientists do: "It is an accepted
>scientific explanation and therefore no more controversial in scientific
>circles than the theories of gravitation and electron flow." (Johnson
>P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p145)
>
I agree with what Johnson says above, at least the part related
to the argument from authority. However, this quote does not
support your preceding statement "As Johnson points out, appeal
to authority is particularly unavoidable in the case of Darwinism"
[...]
>BH>I think the "correct" response to this is that it really
>>doesn't matter that some biologists haven't fully accepted
>>Darwin's theory. In an "ideal" world one would put those
>>issues aside and look at the evidence.
>
SJ:==
>Agreed. But this is not an ideal world. Science is so vast and
>specialised that it is impossible for scientists (let alone laymen) tp one
>is entitled to expect that these biologists who haven't fully accepted
>Darwin's theory, *have* looked at the evidence, and found it
>wanting.
>
One is also entiltled to expect that biologists who have
accepted Darwin's theory have also looked at the evidence
but have not found it wanting. This is really the problem
with the argument from authority, isn't it?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal