Science and Organic Evolution

[PROFDHW at AOL.COM]

>... is something that I would not see as being germane to the scientific
>questions.

Pardon me, John, but if this is the case, why did you bring it up?
Disagreements occur when there are too few facts or certain facts conflict.
Eventually, the evidence will support one hypothesis or theory over another.
When scientific individuals get too emotionally involved with their
hypotheses or theories, that is to say, when they start to 'believe' in them
rather than use them as best possible explanations for the facts, they get
nasty (like religious people when challenged on dogma). When students ask me,
"Do you believe in evolution?", I respond, "Of course not! It's not a matter
of belief. I simply consider it to be the best possible explanation for the
facts. That's science. Scientists don't 'believe' in anything."

Of course, while I'm in buildings and crossing bridges I do believe that they
will not fall down (It's not JUST a theory!! Sorry; couldn't resist). I also
believe that it is unsafe to walk in certain neighborhoods at night. Humans
can't operate on a day to day basis without lots of beliefs. That's the
problem. Science involves the frequent suspension of certain of the many
brain modules that are our selective heritage.

There are certain brain modules we have to turn off just to make life in the
atomic age functional, like the xenophobia module. Part of our heritage
involves a faulty probability module. It is part of the belief package, no
doubt. Suspension of this faulty probability module has major benefits for
science.

These modules were most effective in the Pleistocene landscape in which
humans actually evolved while associating only in small clans. To a large
extent, scientific knowledge and the technology it fosters obviate the need
for many of these modules. Their effect on belief and our imagination
continues, however.

Basically, in spite of disagreements, even extreme ones, science works in the
long run. I guess I have not seen the big picture of where you are going
here, John. I only read TAXACOM when I notice discussion relevant to my
personal interests or expertise. Consequently, I go long periods in the dark
about conversations.

Dave Williams

In a message dated 02/11/15 1:01:27 AM, john Grehan <jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG>
writes:

>I can see this view as dealing with scientific merits, but whether it is
>Ken who is being 'unreasonable' in his demand for a 'middle ground' or
>anyone else who is unreasonable for not conforming to that political ground
>is something that I would not see as being germane to the scientific
>questions. Is Ken the extremist or the 'strict' cladists. It all seems
>no
>more than a matter of personal philosophy.