> 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.
>
That would be most helpful.
>
> 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?
>
What I understand is that there is a difference between philosphical
rationalism or empiricism and methodological empiricism or rationalism. In
philosophy these two views are almost exact opposites, but in science they
have been combined into a powerful methodology, in which physical evidence
forms the basis for logical argument to create the theory that is then used
to design more experiments that will serve as a new foundation for futher
logical argument, etc, ad infinitum. Again, rationalism is a part of the
scientific method (though it is applied only to natural universe, not to
reality as a whole). To deny that when teaching children about science is to
teach them only half the story and to give them a false and misleading
impression about what science is and how it works.
>
> 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.
>
Not in science it isn't; just remember it is not absolute truth that applies
to the whole of reality, just scientific truth that applies only to the
natural universe.
>
> 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.
>
Again, however, in science there is no problem with using this version of the
word truth, so long as everyone understands what you mean by it. We can use
another word if you like, as long as it conveys the same meaning: the
rational logical argument is being used to describe what the natural universe
is like and how it works. That this description may change in the future is
irrelevant to the fact that it is truth for now, and that this truth will
change only if new evidence is found. Besides, most of the time the truth
will only be enhanced and improved, not modified or eliminated.
>
> > 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.
>
Well, at the risk of sounding nasty again, it might also help if you state
your claims plainly with no equivocation or obfuscation.
>
> > 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.
>
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, which you state you plan to give examples of.
>
> > 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.
>
Please do, but the problem will still remain until it is resolved.
>
> > > 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.
>
Again, I look forward to it.
>
> > > 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!
>
I have never denied it; I simply argue that what they do as public figures
does not influence science as whole.
>
> We face a situation where
> these "popular" advocates are leading figures in the scientific
> community.
>
They are **popular** figures in the scientific community, but they do not
lead it.
>
> > 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.
>
That is a misperception. These figures do not lead the scientific community
because in point of fact they cannot. Science is not influenced by charisma
but by evidence and logical argument; as such, it tends to go its own way and
these popular figures can quickly find themselves isolated from the rest of
their colleagues if they do not follow along. And most of the time the
popular message is objectionable only to those few people who reject certain
theories because they make them uncomfortable.
Besides, in the end, it is still a free country, hence everyone is free to
say whatever he likes, no matter how stupid it is. As long as science as a
whole is not influenced by it, Dawkins claiming that neo-Darwinism proves
there is no God is simply doing nothing more harmful than demonstrating his
stupidity.
Kevin L. O'Brien