RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
September 1, 2014 at 6:05 am
(This post was last modified: September 1, 2014 at 6:33 am by Michael.)
ManMachine
Something I would throw in there is that there is a slight anachronism talking about falsification in Darwin's day. The idea of falsification at the centre of science is quite a recent one (formalised only in the last 50 years). Darwin followed the scientific method of his day which was an inductive method, as described by the great philosopher of science Francis Bacon. Inductive science, such as Darwin's, is based on the accumulation of large amounts of data and the formulation of a model, after the data gathering ('post-hoc'), that best fits the data. Many now see falsification as 'the' scientific method, but I doubt Darwin would have ever come up with his theory using that one particular method of science: inductive, rather than deductive methods (as falsification is) are often behind the great paradigm shifts in science, with falsification then following on. There is a danger people get too wedded to falsification, forgetting that science has a broader range of tools in its toolbox. Inductive reasoning, as per Bacon's science, is still incredibly valuable especially for opening up new ground. And it's still the main foundation of wide-ranging theories like evolution that are not easily subject to simple falsification: we simply look for the best explanation of the available data (that's the inductive method in a nutshell).
Sorry, I just have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when science is equated with just falsification. That would remove centuries of great science, and significantly limit our scientific toolbox today.
Something I would throw in there is that there is a slight anachronism talking about falsification in Darwin's day. The idea of falsification at the centre of science is quite a recent one (formalised only in the last 50 years). Darwin followed the scientific method of his day which was an inductive method, as described by the great philosopher of science Francis Bacon. Inductive science, such as Darwin's, is based on the accumulation of large amounts of data and the formulation of a model, after the data gathering ('post-hoc'), that best fits the data. Many now see falsification as 'the' scientific method, but I doubt Darwin would have ever come up with his theory using that one particular method of science: inductive, rather than deductive methods (as falsification is) are often behind the great paradigm shifts in science, with falsification then following on. There is a danger people get too wedded to falsification, forgetting that science has a broader range of tools in its toolbox. Inductive reasoning, as per Bacon's science, is still incredibly valuable especially for opening up new ground. And it's still the main foundation of wide-ranging theories like evolution that are not easily subject to simple falsification: we simply look for the best explanation of the available data (that's the inductive method in a nutshell).
Sorry, I just have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when science is equated with just falsification. That would remove centuries of great science, and significantly limit our scientific toolbox today.
