I had written:
> > I have no intention of defending Platonism. It provides a framework
> > for interpreting data, just as darwinism does. To progress in
> > science, we need to be able to see how our conceptual frameworks
> > influence our thinking about the interpretation of data. I have
> > sought to point out above how darwinism has this subtle effect. What
> > many darwinists seem content to do is to develop their position by
> > force of logic: "the world must be like this because these are the
> > rules of biology". The scientific approach IMO identifies the
> > different approaches and seeks out ways of testing alternatives.
> > Darwinism has singularly failed to do this, and I look forward to the
> > day when this situation changes.
KOB:
> Again, you seem to indicate that logical reasoning is or should be foreign to
> science.
I cannot see anything in what I have written to suggest this. I wish
to encourage logical reasoning.
> In point of fact, science is as strongly based on
> deductive/inductive reasoning as it is on empirical evidence.
Yes. The nature of our difference is IMO the practice of deductive
reasoning. There is a right and proper place for it, and there are
also great dangers associated with it.
> The point of
> view that you seem to be espousing is called empirical literalism -- read
> nature directly, believe what you see and assume or reason nothing about it
> or into it that cannot be directly supported by empirical evidence.
I am not advocating this at all! The nearest position to what
you describe is what I would call "Baconian science". I think
Baconianism is an unrealistic perception of the way science works.
> The
> problem with this, however, is that naive empirical literalism cannot
> adequately explain a universe as complex as ours, especially when a fair
> amount of information is in one form or another missing. Modern science is
> actually based on a combination of empirical research and inferential
> reasoning: use empirical evidence to establish the facts as far as you can,
> then use reasoning and inference to fill in the gaps. Whenever possible this
> inferential reasoning should be tested, but as long as it is strongly based
> on the available empirical evidence, the inferential reasoning is then
> theoretical, not speculative as you seem to imply, and as such can be
> accepted as reality.
With the exception of the last clause, I can concur with this.
> Before you go making blanket statements like those in the above paragraph,
> you might want to read the latest edition of Futuyma's _Evolutionary
> Biology_. Even the rather old edition I have (1979) contains many examples
> of direct empirical testing of "Darwinism" and other evolutionary
> alternatives.
My statements above were not blanket statements. They were
qualified. I do think that Darwinism can be tested. My concern is
that many of its advocates appear to be highly resistant to the
spirit of "self-correction" in science. Many "darwinian arguments"
keep cropping up, even though they ought to have been discarded years
ago. I'm not making a criticism of Futuyma here - I treat my copy of
his book with respect.
> I understand how much you want to believe that "Darwinism" has
> somehow failed in scientific methodology, but that simply isn't true, and the
> more you stubbornly refuse to learn the truth, the more isolated you will
> become from those evolutionary scientists who might find your skepticism
> beneficial.
It is not that I "want to believe that "Darwinism" has somehow failed
in scientific methodology". The point I am making is that I observe
some advocates of Darwinism moving away from what I regard as
authentic scientific methodology towards a pseudo-science: a virtual
world where reason is used to deduce reality based on the "certain
truths" emerging from the neodarwinian synthesis.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.