hello, I have a question not related to comparative politics but related to my curiosity
Today's slides referred to the conception of 'falsifiability', and it says creationism is a non-falsifiable statement. I totally agree with that, but I thought that darwinism's version of genesis is also unobservable so that it is non-falsifiable. According to Popper's definition of science, do you think Darwinism is a scientific theory?
Martign:
Hi George,
That is a very good question. I am no expert but I do know that there is quite some criticism out there saying that evolutionary theory can explain everything and therefore nothing. This criticism thus considers evolutionary theory non-falsifiable.
I have two responses to that line of criticism (and again, I am no expert). First of, I think evolutionary theory is based on a number of simple premises. It posits a clear causal mechanism of how species develop (i.e., survival of the fittest). This is different from creationism which does not provide such a causal mechanism above and beyond simply stating that species have developed the way they did because God made them that way. I also think that, because of its causal arguments, evolutionary theory makes testable predictions about development of species (e.g., if you put a number of giraffes in an environment where all food is located even higher than usual giraffes necks will tend to grow even further over generations). The problem, I think, is that evolutionary theory is often used in an ex post manner. Scientists observe a particular phenomenon and fit evolutionary theory to that phenomenon in order to 'predict' it. This is not a proper scientific approach. However, the problem here, I think, is not the theory per se but how it is being put to work.
Do you think this makes sense? What are your thoughts?
That is a very good question. I am no expert but I do know that there is quite some criticism out there saying that evolutionary theory can explain everything and therefore nothing. This criticism thus considers evolutionary theory non-falsifiable.
I have two responses to that line of criticism (and again, I am no expert). First of, I think evolutionary theory is based on a number of simple premises. It posits a clear causal mechanism of how species develop (i.e., survival of the fittest). This is different from creationism which does not provide such a causal mechanism above and beyond simply stating that species have developed the way they did because God made them that way. I also think that, because of its causal arguments, evolutionary theory makes testable predictions about development of species (e.g., if you put a number of giraffes in an environment where all food is located even higher than usual giraffes necks will tend to grow even further over generations). The problem, I think, is that evolutionary theory is often used in an ex post manner. Scientists observe a particular phenomenon and fit evolutionary theory to that phenomenon in order to 'predict' it. This is not a proper scientific approach. However, the problem here, I think, is not the theory per se but how it is being put to work.
Do you think this makes sense? What are your thoughts?
me:
thanks for your time : )
In 1976, philosopher Karl Popper said that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme". However, Popper later recanted and offered a more nuanced view of its status:
However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
I am not an expert too, and I think that Popper's statement makes sense. In the giraffe case, I think the observable part is the changing shape of the giraffe, but the changing intelligence of the giraffe is unobservable. There is no evidence could show that the giraffe becomes more smarter in this process. So how to explain the intelligence leap of human being in comparison with apes?
Kant's forth antinomy makes sense to me as well. The theory of evolution may be somewhat problematic, as it seems that any other scientific theories would not lead to the conclusion that a necessary being does not exit.
Martign:
Hi George,
I agree with Popper's statement that good tests of Darwinism are hard to come by. But they are still possible depending on the creativity of the researcher.
About the intelligence leap of humans: I don't think intelligence is unobservable...researchers have been trying to measure and study it scientifically it for some time now (for better or worse) in humans but also in other species (see for instance the work by Frans de Waal on chimps). This is not an answer to why this leap occurred of course (I don't have a good answer to that).
See you in class tomorrow.
Martign:
Hi George,
I agree with Popper's statement that good tests of Darwinism are hard to come by. But they are still possible depending on the creativity of the researcher.
About the intelligence leap of humans: I don't think intelligence is unobservable...researchers have been trying to measure and study it scientifically it for some time now (for better or worse) in humans but also in other species (see for instance the work by Frans de Waal on chimps). This is not an answer to why this leap occurred of course (I don't have a good answer to that).
See you in class tomorrow.
没有评论:
发表评论