Re: Article: Why Do We Invoke Darwin?


"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dg052m$2pi0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Anon." <bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dftqi1$207a$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
>> > Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to
>> > experimental biology By Philip S. Skell
> [snip]
>
>> Incidentally, when I googled "Philip S. Skell", my top hit was for a
>> page from the Discovery Institute. So, if nothing else, expect warnings
>> from Josh "not to go down there".
>
> Yes, it does appear that Skell is quite thoroughly in bed with the
> Discovery
> Institute - not merely being exploited by them.
>
> Too bad really. I thought that he had raised some interesting questions.
> Skell seems to distinguish experimental biology (answering the
> question of how life works) from evolutionary biology (answering the
> question of how life got to be that way). He asks, how much does one's
> opinion on how it got to be that way influence one's research on how
> it works. His answer, a debatable one, is "not much".
>
> In my own area of primary interest - the origin and nature of early life,
> I am of the opinion that many researchers are working under very incorrect
> theories (heterotrophic) as to how early life got to be that way. But
> I have to admit that this has not seriously interfered with progress in
> understanding how early life presumably worked.
>
> Personally, I would like to see some discussion of Skell's topic, if we
> can get past the distraction of Skell's motivation.

Jim,

Total concurrence with your solicitation to move beyond the diversion.

If a man were known to you and me to consort with purveyors of error and
illogic, and if that man were to advise you and me that the safest procedure
for us to mix sulfuric acid and water would be for us to have the water and
the acid very cold beforehand, and then add the acid to the water very, very
slowly, smoothly and cautiously..., would you and I be wise to say to one
another, "Ah ha ! Consider the source of this information," and then
proceed to reject that man's advice and do the inverse of the procedure he
advised.

Does not the derogation of an idea, on grounds of _guilt by association_
serve as a blatant example of the kind of murky thinking I have been
maintaining in our exchanges, which can be found even at high levels of
expertise and academic respectability. How could any more blatant example
of murkiness of reasoning be found than this: that an idea should be tossed
aside and ignored, on the basis of nothing more than _guilt by association_.

Be assured, this kind of example would not aggravate me if I were in
sympathy with any anti-science agenda. On the contrary, if I were pulling
for anti-science, it would delight me. I would point to it and say, "Well,
look at this. The scientists do not even practice their own professed
objectivity. They score points for the anti-science agenda by default.
After all if scientists really believed in what they call scientific
objectivity, I would mock, then they would _practice what they preach_.

But my feelings are the opposite of that. I am pained to see even the
suggestion of such a default.

As one who believes in the scientific ideal, soundly pursued, and as one who
enthusiastically pulls for the science "team," as it were, I cannot enjoy
seeing such a suggestion of an amateurish fumble as would consist in
sweeping aside a statement -- clearly, simply and unambiguously made as the
subject one -- on basis of some social, political, esoteric, preferential,
psychological, fraternal, or other subjective grounds.

Yes. I totally concur with you that the idea bears discussion on its
merits, and with the same kind of dispassionate objectivity we would hold
out to be the backbone of all 'good' science.


g















go










.