[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: "running" elephants - locomotary analoges



HP ekaterina A wrote:
<...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.>

>From the sound of it, you're limiting 'rigor' to a single methodology 
for deriving ideas.  I'm not sure how you got there from Popper.
At any rate, suppose, using your exemplars, that HP's Dinogeorge 
and Paul are as knowledgeable as anyone about issues they choose 
to analyze and are as thorough in devising tests of their ideas 
as possible and are as logical in developing their ideas as possible. 
 What else could possibly be demanded of them to make their ideas 
worth respectful consideration?
I think I'm missing something.

You also say:
<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.>

An 'axiom' must be invariably accurate under a defined set of 
circumstances.  Are you saying that there exist axioms for describing 
an ancestor which can be proven accurate in the same way axioms 
are accurate in, say, geometry?
And no fair saying the statements are logical.  A logically stated 
idea can be factually wrong (proven inaccurate by observation). 
 Given limited observations, a number of contradictory but logical 
statements are always possible.


 


= = = Original message = = =

--- Philidor <philidor11@snet.net> 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
http://tax.yahoo.com


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.