OrgoneConclusion said:

If you cross a horse with a donkey you get a Honkey.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

This is a problem I see with Popper and his objectivist outlook.  I agree with Popper to the extent that science should be conducted "value-free," but is it?  I would say no.  Here one of Popper's critics, Longino, raises an important objection:

Quote:

The idea of a value-free science presupposes that the object of inquiry is given in and by nature, whereas contextual analysis shows that such objects are constituted in part by social needs and interests that become encoded in the assumptions of research programs.  Instead of remaining passive with respect to the data and what the data suggests, we can, therefore, acknowledge our ability to affect the course of knowledge and fashion or favor research programs that are consistent with the values and commitments we express in the rest of our lives.  From this perspective the idea of a value-free science is not just empty but pernicious.

---

In Darwin's day he was, at first, a Deist.  The values guiding his science were the upward progression of man and nature.  Everything was being "perfected."  Later, after his relationship with Huxley, Darwin became more agnostic. (It's funny how that happens.)  Values drove Darwin just as values drive much research that goes on today.

---

zouden said:

Silversoul said:

zouden said:

I don't think it's true to say we can't observe speciation. We can observe it in the fossil record.

---

We can observe one species following another in the fossil record.  We have not yet observed one species giving birth to another.

---

Well that's because one species can't give birth to another. That's not how speciation works.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

We cannot observe speciation as an event.  What we observe are the effects that we interpret as speciation.  I think SilverSoul was alluding to this.

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:

This is really central to the thread.  I can only surmise that most of us are more familiar with the arguments being offered than the idea that science is culturally driven.  Since that is the case, its conclusions, especially in the case of historical events, are suspect.

---

zouden said:

Mr. Mushrooms said:

We cannot observe speciation as an event.  What we observe are the effects that we interpret as speciation.  I think SilverSoul was alluding to this.

---

But that's the same with all events. We can't observe a supernova, but we can observe the effects (light hitting our telescope). We interpret this light to mean a supernova occurred.

At the other extreme: we can't observe cells dividing, but we can measure the number of cells in a test tube over time, and interpret that to mean they divided. We could even put a cell under a microscope and take photos of it during the very act of mitosis, but we still can only interpret the images to mean that cell division took place.

Telescopes, microscopes, fossils: all just tools.

---

redgreenvines said:

Evolution as a Natural Science, incorporates things as they are, and as they have been discovered naturally with no philosophical conflicts.
It is a beautiful model bridging chemistry, genetics, geology and meteorology as well as astronomy. It is simple, and has no political intentions.

Many are challenged by it, many are incapable of putting ideology aside long enough to understand that this is simple natural science, an accumulation of even-handed and even-minded observations without interference. It finds acceptance where there is avoidance of denial of what exists, and where memory serves to retain facts that were known a few minutes ago.

Acceptance of the geological fossil record helps prove things that would be expected to have happened a long time ago.

Evolution as an idea could have been derived from observation alone without any excavation. It does not need a clergy, or a book of instructions, it is natural.

---