Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

From: Robert Schneider (
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 12:38:37 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised"

    The question, "Do you believe in macroevolution?" is the wrong question. I do not "believe" in evolution. I am reasonally and logically convinced of it by the overwhelming and widely diverse kinds of evidence that make it a compelling scientific explanation for the descent of life.

    Bob Schneider
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Alexanian, Moorad
      To: Walter Hicks
      Cc: ; ;
      Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:40 AM
      Subject: RE: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

      Evolution is more akin to forensic science than, say, physics. The word science in "forensic science"---just as in "historical sciences"---means that one does detective work using scientific instruments. It is certainly not an experimental science since it deals with unique events. It is the science that evolutionary theory uses that is experimental in nature not evolutionary theory itself. It is common to ask "do you believe in (macro) evolution?" Such types of questions are never asked in physics. For instance, have you ever heard anyone say "do you believe in relativity or quantum mechanics?" Are we, therefore, more in the area of "faith" rather than conventional, unadulterated science?


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Walter Hicks []
      Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:13 AM
      To: Alexanian, Moorad
      Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

      Does that mean that evolution is not a science? I have not heard of any predictive aspects of it.

      "Alexanian, Moorad" wrote:

        Ancients used to explain eclipses and why the sun rises but could not make predictions. The essence of a scientific theory is the ability to make predictions and not merely give explanations, which is pure phenomenology.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: [] On Behalf Of
        Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:39 AM
        Subject: Re: Post-Empiricism Science: A little surprised

        In a message dated 9/17/03 1:46:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

        The evolutionary paradigm is just as religious and sacred as a Creationary
        paradigm. The only difference is that the evolutionary paradigm is based upon
        and accepted by blind faith. It is blind because it cannot be confirmed by
        anyone who could know.

        T. Kuhn wrote that the strength of a hypothesis is in its explanatory value. The explanatory value of evolutionary theory is so strong and there is so much evidence for it that to dispute it at this point is to dig your head in the sand.

        "If a paradigm is ever to triumph it must gain some first supporters, men who will develop it to
        the point where hard headed arguments can be produced and multiplied. And even those
        arguments when they come are not individually decisive.

        Because scientists are reasonable men, one or another argument will ultimately persuade many
        of them. But there is no single argument that can or should persuade them all. Rather than a
        single group conversion, what occurs is an increasing shift in the distribution of professional

        At the start, a new candidate for paradigm may have few supporters, and on occasion the
        supporters' motives may be suspect. Nevertheless, if they are competent, they will improve it,
        explore its possibilities and show what it would be like to belong to the community guided by
        it. And as that goes on, if the paradigm is one destined to win its fight, the number and
        strength of the professional arguments in its favor will increase.

        More scientists will then be converted and the exploration of the new paradigm will go on.
        Gradually the number of experiments, instruments, articles and books based upon the
        paradigm will multiply. Still more men, convinced of the new view's fruitfulness will adopt the
        new mode of practicing normal science, until at last only a few elderly hold-outs remain.

        Though the historian can always find men, Priestley, for instance, who were unreasonable to
        resist for as long as they did, he will not find a point at which resistance becomes illogical or
        unscientific. At most he may wish to say that the man who continues to resist after his whole
        profession has been converted has ipso facto ceased to be a scientist."

                               The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhns
                                       Chapter: Resolution of Revolutions

        rich faussette

      Walt Hicks <>

      In any consistent theory, there must
      exist true but not provable statements.
      (Godel's Theorem)

      You can only find the truth with logic
      If you have already found the truth
      without it. (G.K. Chesterton)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 17 2003 - 12:42:37 EDT