Just a quick generic thought along the same lines:
It seems to me that if one's goal is simply truth regardless of =
practical utility, then one is under no obligation to produce a superior =
rival before rejecting a given theory.
If, on the other hand, a major goal is practical utility (hopefully =
leading to truth in the long run), then it's important to offer =
something better rather than simply criticizing the prevailing theory. =
(But even this I wouldn't want to overstate, in that it's more precisely =
the case that -someone- needs to come up with a better theory, not =
necessarily the critic.)
The former approach, an extremely important one, is characteristic of =
philosophy. (This is my background, and I'm too frequently bemused when =
those with, say, an engineering background will reply to some seemingly =
decisive objection I'll raise to, e.g., materialism by saying "but what =
can you do with -that-?!!" Practically, they may be right; but usually, =
up until this comment, we were discussing the -truth- of the theory in =
question, not its -utility-.)
The latter approach is more characteristic of science, and especially of =
engineering or applied science. While one is tempted to critique its =
pragmatism as crude (effectively, and usually unconsciously, tolerating =
falsehood [especially wrt foundations] if the ultimately false theory =
works), one should not forget the sorts of insights that this pragmatic =
orientation has led to over time, even from a philosophical perspective. =
Even the myriad false theories in science were invaluable stepping =
stones toward whatever scientific truth we have now, and have provided =
far, far more grist for the intellectual mill than philosophy alone =
would have ever discovered.
(Suppose Newton had realized the deep and wide errors in the foundations =
of his physics and then, thinking as a philosopher might, said simply "I =
don't care if it 'works' -- I know it's all ultimately false!" and =
discarded his Principia. Would we have a better grip on the truth today =
as a result, since an ultimately false theory was rejected? -I doubt =
it!!-)
I see this as a comment of warning and encouragement to both camps =
(alethic/realistic and pragmatic), and I hope people can come to agree =
upon this. I believe that the more one knows of the histories of =
science and philosophy, the more one will realize that this is true. =
And I think this insight can ease some of the tensions between =
supporters and opponents of evolution, and lead them to look upon each =
other more charitably, and to realize the solid intellectual merit (as =
well as the incompleteness) in each approach. =20
That's my goal in bringing it up, anyway.
----------
From: Brian D. Harper[SMTP:harper.10@osu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 1996 8:47 PM
To: evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: Re: The 1st Paleontologist was a Neanderthal
At 10:08 PM 9/2/96, Glenn wrote:
>
>My point is, that criticism without an alternative is nothing but stone =
>throwing. It is saying "I don't like your view, but I can't think of =
anything=20
>else." =20
>
I just wanted to make a few generic comments, not directed specifically
at Glenn or Paul or anyone else (primarily because I haven't been
following this thread too closely :).
While I think (hope) I understand and appreciate Glenn's frustration,
I feel very strongly that everyone has a fundamental, constitutional,
inalienable, God given, not to be messed with ;-) right to be a
skeptic and to offer criticism even if she has no alternative.
However, the skeptic who has no alternative should openly admit
that they have no alternative.
In practice, it seems to me that most skeptics *do* have an=20
alternative, and their criticisms are given either to avoid
having to defend their own view or under the mistaken notion
that evidence against an alternative view is evidence for
their view. This practice is, IMHO, totally unacceptable.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand=20
Associate Professor | something and want to=20
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the=20
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"=20
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic | =20
rulers of science |