> > Again, you seem to indicate that logical reasoning is or should be
> > foreign to science.
No, Kevin, it is fundamental to science.
> .. .. 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.
I am sorry to have given false impressions.
> There are only three ways in which reasoning is used improperly: 1)
> reasoning in the absence of evidence, 2) reasoning in defiance 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.
I'll leave others to think about whether there are only three
improper ways of reasoning. Perhaps the way forward here is for me to
present specific examples of the way Darwinists have failed the
scientific enterprise.
I had written: " 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.
Perhaps one way to help clarify misunderstanding is to explain that
there is a difference between "rational" thought/"rationality" and the
philosophical stance known as "rationalism". Christians IMO are
enthusiastic about rational thinking - because God has given us brains
to think logically. However, Christians are totally opposed to
rationalism, which denies that any true knowledge can be gained except
by the application of rational thinking. Rationalism is hostile to
revelation, but the Christian understands God's revelation to be true
knowledge. Do you understand this difference, Kevin? Do you agree
with this particular point I am making?
Kevin had a para concluding with:
> > > 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.
I responded with:
> > With the exception of the last clause, I can concur with this.
Kevin replied:
> 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.
As far as this clause is concerned, I still disagree with it. The
"conclusions" can be defended pragmatically (they are coherent, they
work, etc) but to elevate them to "truth" or to "reality" is quite
unacceptable. Then you get a situation that what is true (in science)
this year is untrue next year (when more light has been cast on the
problem). This is a relativistic use of the word "true" that I think
we should avoid completely.
> 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.
I think email exchanges often degenerate because the personal
interaction is absent. Also, on these issues, we operate within
different paradigms and it is not surprising to find that
misunderstandings abound.
> 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.
In case there is any doubt, I have never doubted that rationality is
an important and necessary part of science.
> 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.
What I would like to do now is not to pursue this particular thread on
presuppositions, but to document some of these problems in Darwinism.
> > 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 would like to prepare a discussion document on this.
> > 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 regard this as a major concession, Kevin! We face a situation where
these "popular" advocates are leading figures in the scientific
community.
> 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.
The wider community is to be criticised because instead of correcting
the "popular" message, they give these leading scientists awards for
their services to science, etc. The wider community is content to be
led by these people.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.