> Kevin O'Brien wrote on Fri, 17 Sep 1999:
>
> 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 the opening paragraph of this post (see above) you wrote: "What many
darwinists seem content to do is to develop their position by force of
logic...." You then go on to claim that science instead works by "testing
alternatives", thereby implying that science is empirical rather than
rational. In a previous post you had claimed that I seemed to be trying to
validate the peppered moth scenario by using logic and deductive reasoning
instead of empirical experimental; you then concluded by asking if that is
what I wanted taught in schools and you answered for yourself saying that
that was not how you wanted science taught.
Based on these and other examples, you have created (in my mind at least) the
impression that science should be empirical -- as you say Baconian -- rather
than utilize both empiricism and rationalism in equal amounts. If that was
not your intention, then I suggest you need to word your claims better so as
not to give false impressions.
>
> > 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.
>
There are only three ways in which reasoning is used improperly: 1)
reasoning in the absence of evidence, 2) reasoning in defience of evidence,
and 3) presenting the conclusions based on reasoning as if they were
experimental results. The only danger is in refusing to test the conclusions
drawn from reasoning. To my knowledge very few "Darwinists" do any of these,
and only in their popular writings, yet your characterization is that this is
a general trend among Darwinists as a whole in their **scientific** work, and
that simply is not true.
>
> > 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.
>
Then again I would suggest that you word your claims differently to prevent
these kinds of misunderstandings in the future. Otherwise, what else am I to
think when you start saying that you do not want children to be taught that
rationalism is involved in science.
>
> > 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.
>
Which illustrates my point. The last clause was, "...and as such can be
accepted as reality", by which I meant that in science the conclusions
derived from rational logical argument that was itself based on empirical
evidence can be accepted as reality until they are demonstrated by empirical
evidence to be invalid. Here you appear to disagree with this, yet elsewhere
you deny that you disagree with this. How can I figure out what your point
is when you keep contradicting yourself like this? I've pointed this out in
our discussions before, but while you argue that you do not contradict
yourself, you take no steps to prevent this kind of confusion in any future
discussion. Sometimes I wonder if you do it on purpose. I'm not trying to
be nasty, but it gets very frustrating trying to pin down your beliefs when
they appear to keep changing all the time.
The question is very simple: do you or do you not believe that rationality
is an important and necessary part of science? If you do, then you should
have no complaint when Darwinists use it to help validate their hypotheses
UNLESS you have clear evidence that they are abusing the privelage in the way
I outlined early. If instead you do not, then you are advocating the
Baconian view whether you wish to admit or not.
>
> > 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 see no qualifications in the claim that "Darwinism has singularly failed"
to identify and test alternatives, especially when you conclude by expressing
the desire to one day see this changed, thus implying that they do not do
this now and that they have never done it in the past. This is a blanket
statement and it is the one I objected to.
>
> I do think that Darwinism can be tested.
>
That's not the point; the point is that you do not believe it IS BEING tested
right now. That simply is not true, as Futuyma demonstrates.
>
> My concern is
> that many of its advocates appear to be highly resistant to the
> spirit of "self-correction" in science.
>
In their popular writings, perhaps for some this is true (especially when
they are discussing creationism), but if you read the scientific literature,
or at least textbooks like Futuyma, you would see that this is not true for
their scientific work, as you are implying.
>
> Many "darwinian arguments"
> keep cropping up, even though they ought to have been discarded years
> ago.
>
Examples? This sounds more like wishful thinking, based on a desire to see
strong cases like the peppered moth disappear, so as to make your position
appear stronger to the lay public.
>
> I'm not making a criticism of Futuyma here - I treat my copy of
> his book with respect.
>
But you don't allow yourself to learn from it, otherwise you wouldn't be
making these arguments. Unless of course your motivation is more political
than scientific, in which case you could easily ignore the clear science that
proves your claims wrong as being irrelevant.
>
> > 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".
>
Yet you often go to great pains to argue exactly this, or so it appears.
>
> 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.
>
"Some advocates of Darwinism" have done this in their popular writings,
especially when they discuss creationism; I freely admit this. What I object
to is your attempt to extrapolate this into a general trend within
neo-Darwinian science as a whole. I don't mind you criticizing individual
Darwinists for their excesses, but when you use that as evidence to conclude
that "Darwinism has singularly failed" to identify and test alternatives in a
proper scientific manner, especially when sources like Futuyma demonstrate
that this conclusion is dead wrong, I have to question your objectivity in
this matter.
Kevin L. O'Brien