Science and Organic Evolution

[john grehan]

Regarding comments by Dave Williams,

At 07:14 AM 11/15/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >... 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?

Ken brought up an argument based on the presumption that one may assess
competing research perspectives according to criteria (I don't know whether
they are properly classed as 'philosophical', 'political', 'social' etc. I
was pointing out that such criteria did not seem to germane to the
scientific questions (about which I could be wrong and Ken may have a
response to that effect). I guess I brought up that point, and in making
the point that such considerations were not germane I was contradicting
myself in saying it.

>Disagreements occur when there are too few facts or certain facts conflict.

I there are different interpretations for the same facts.

>Eventually, the evidence will support one hypothesis or theory over another.

Naturally, that is by definition. But what constitutes 'evidence' can
differ between research programs for the very same data. Biogeography has
shown this many times.

>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).

If one defines "too emotionally" by the criteria of being "nasty" I suppose
that would be correct. I take the position that a scientist is free to take
as much emotional stake in their theories or hypotheses as they like, and
if its a 'belief' rather than anything else what's wrong with that? It s a
human reality. I have meet people completely in the belief of their
position, but there is nothing 'nasty' in their approach to others, and
they do not engage in vilification of individuals, censorship, repression etc.

>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."

I take the position that evolution can, like any other science, be a matter
of belief. I believe the earth is round. Whether it is or not may be
another matter.

>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).

It seems to me that philosophers have been so impertinent as to dispute
this position.

>Science involves the frequent suspension of certain of the many
>brain modules that are our selective heritage.

'selective heritage'?


>Basically, in spite of disagreements, even extreme ones, science works in the
>long run.

Perhaps this is the pragmatist view, that it does not matter whether
positions are extreme with respect to each other, but that they 'work'. It
may be an important consideration as it does not follow that because a
science works it gets general acceptance. Croizat used the panbiogeographic
method to to predict the composite geological/tectonic structure of the
Americas before it was discovered by geologists (and actually acknowledged
by the geologists Nur and Ben Avraham). In this respect panbiogeography
'works'. And what is the result of this success. If one is a Darwinian
biogeographer the response tends to be along the lines that it was just a
fluke, or a coincidence, or Croizat was mostly wrong anyway so it does not
matter that he might have got it right once or twice.

>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.

No worries.

John Grehan


>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.