At 04:29 PM 05/12/2000 -0400, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>Steve C:
> >And they will continue to defend random mutation and natural selection
> >until a better mechanistic paradigm comes along. ID doesn't provide a
> >mechanistic explanation and does not represent such a paradigm shift. ID
> >and evolution really deal with different matters and that is why ID hasn't
> >been readily embraced by science. It simply does not explain how different
> >species came about. It only says that it was purposful.
>
>Hi Steve,
>I don't find much with which to disagree in your post. I see most of your
>points. I know no reason for science to embrace ID. I am offended by
>efforts, a la Eugene Scott, to "stamp it out".
Conversely I see her efforts as an attempt to prevent a redefinition of
science that would allow things not properly belonging to science in the
door. A relevant example here is alternative medicine. Alt med folks make
very similar complaints about medical science that you make about science
in general. Chief among them is the complaint that science is trying to
"stamp it out". I have been researching several areas of alt med for an
ethics paper I am writing and am shocked by their attempts to provide a
scholarly patina to some things are just silly. Frankly, both alt med and
ID strike me as post-modern attempts to redefine science, much like
post-modernists have done with art. For instance, they say that art is
what you want it to be--but this simply means that there is no such thing
as art because one cannot say what is not art. Similarly, if we allow such
broad definitions of science, then there is effectively no such thing as
science. Anything can be called scientific simply because someone wishes
it to be so.
Frankly, my debate here with you represents my attempt to stamp out such
post-modern assaults on science that are coming from the ID crowd. So I am
fully sympathetic with Eugenie.
>I do have some questions:
>
>1. Why should scientists "defend" random mutation and natural selection until
>a better mechanistic paradigm comes along?
As Kuhn so ably pointed out, paradigms are difficult to usurp, even if data
contrary to the prevailing paradigm exist. This fact of science is nicely
documented in the stories of two Nobel prize winners, Howard Temin and
Barbara McLintock. In the early days of their research, both accumulated
data that were contrary to certain prevailing paradigms. They were not
believed even though the data really could not be understood in any way
other than the way that they interpreted them. It took much more
confirmatory evidence from independent sources before they were
believed. Thus, scientists defended the prevailing paradigms in the face
of contrary evidence until science was collectively convinced. This is the
conservative nature of science that I wrote about recently on this
reflector. This is simply intrinsic to the human enterprise of
science. Right or wrong, it just is. Another important fact about
paradigms, is that even in the face of evidence that they are wrong, they
remain entrenched until a competing paradigm that better explains the
observations comes along. Thus, despite the complaints that data
supporting evolution are lacking, the paradigm remains because ID is not
sufficient to overturn it. This is because evolution is a mechanistic
paradigm and ID is not. They really address different questions so it
makes sense that they are seen as exclusive paradigms.
>2. Do you consider Gaia a mechanistic explanation? Phenomena that might be
>considered random in isolation appear purposeful considered by the Gaia
>concept? In this case wouldn't "purpose" be an essential part of the
>explanation? Do you consider such concepts outside science?
Gaia might be a mechanistic explanation for something. But I fail to
understand your question. What concepts do you refer to?
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 18:44:16 EDT