[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: "running" elephants - locomotary analoges
--- Philidor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Consistent garbage in, consistent garbage out.
Popperism provides a rather robust philosophical
framework. And as such Hutchinson et al working within
that framework have obtained results to test a
hypothesis. This is fine and should probably
criticized by construction of alternative hypothesis.
However, it is my personal observation that Popperism
also appears to impose a certain idealized historical
view regarding how science happens or has happened.
The idealized progression from Copernik to Kepler to
Newton to Lapace to Einstein and Planck is presented
as historical reality. However it is my understanding
that science does not necessarily flow as this
Popperic ideal fluid. So trying to make it flow within
these constraints, while calling everything else as
pseudoscience, is, in my opinion, likely to slow down
the true objectives of science. Rigor in my opinion is
of secondary importance to results.
Here is where the likes of Dinogeorg or Paul come in.
They do not necessarily work within the Popperian
constraints but this does not make their line of
action superfluous. They contribute positive and must
be acknowledged for it.
However, in evolutionary biology, where reconstruction
of the ancestor is the central issue, there are clear
definitions of what consitutes the test of a
hypothesis. The only problem is that these definitions
stem from certain axioms which are not necessarily as
clear as Euclid' 5th postulate or its alternatives.
Hence, I believe evolutionary biologists need to lay
out their axioms more clearly if they want a broader
audience to grasp their doing meaningfully (not the
superficial understanding seen in the press)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more