tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post8706234039602718596..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Did Darwin run a pyramid scheme? Darwinian method, continuedAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-41277922269996375162012-01-31T16:25:15.758-05:002012-01-31T16:25:15.758-05:00Titles and abstracts and hypotheses... it's ha...Titles and abstracts and hypotheses... it's harder to garner interest without first piquing it!Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-34333239237515471992012-01-31T13:16:50.148-05:002012-01-31T13:16:50.148-05:00Pretty much how Origin was written -- not that he ...Pretty much how Origin was written -- not that he wasn't leading the witness!Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-42624611072515393412012-01-31T13:08:12.852-05:002012-01-31T13:08:12.852-05:00This is my endeavor to overhaul introductory bioan...This is my endeavor to overhaul introductory bioanth! It's working wonderfully, imho. Observations first, then theory. All the textbooks frontload the theory which is a totally backwards way to teach people how to be learners. Again, imho.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-74773413908101697872012-01-31T12:18:30.389-05:002012-01-31T12:18:30.389-05:00As Darwin wrote to a young scientist in 1863 (says...As Darwin wrote to a young scientist in 1863 (says Ayala), “Let theory guide your observations."Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-23308531156341946692012-01-31T11:57:50.599-05:002012-01-31T11:57:50.599-05:00Well, at that time explorers were, for the first s...Well, at that time explorers were, for the first systematic time, collecting specimens and making observations of the world that hadn't been reported in European science. So, they had no preconception of what they'd find.<br /><br />In fact, Darwin was a Christian when he started out, so the idea of explaining Nature as a 'process' would perhaps never have occurred to him (despite fragments of such speculation as in Lamarck or his uncle Erasmus, if he even knew of them at the time).<br /><br />Even more than that, he only began to be influenced about uniformitarianism while reading Lyell, on the Beagle if I recall (and he may not have known about Hutton's work, or connected it to his trip's purpose). His main Beagle interests were in geology.<br /><br />So he may simply not have been thinking as a 'scientist' (theory based) but really just as a collector of the unknown, until various aspects of pattern and so on occurred to him.<br /><br />There had been other naturalists out collecting here and there, like von Humboldt and others who I wouldn't know of. But they were largely describing what they saw. The Beagle's mission was largely to survey the coast of South America for the Royal Navy,again a descriptive rather than 'scientific' endeavor.<br /><br />I don't know what FitzRoy was thinking (he was a fundamentalist, that's well known), but he was a founder of modern meteorology, so he may or may not have been working on theories of atmosphere, humidity, and so on....and perhaps discussions over dinner in the officer's deck could have raised ideas about 'theory'.<br /><br />We are so institutionalized in science these days, that we are taught theory in a sense even before facts, so that may mean we would have a hard time imagining a theory-free naturalist.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-38206184155648608352012-01-31T11:42:03.595-05:002012-01-31T11:42:03.595-05:00I wrote this comment while you all were posting th...I wrote this comment while you all were posting the above, and missed out. :(Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-81370916478210423782012-01-31T11:35:43.541-05:002012-01-31T11:35:43.541-05:00I guess part of my confusion is my own limitation:...I guess part of my confusion is my own limitation: I can't imagine a human being collecting observations while completely devoid of any theoretical bias/motivation. And if being a tabula rasa is the requirement for induction, then induction doesn't exist.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-19826315864823676592012-01-31T11:20:37.075-05:002012-01-31T11:20:37.075-05:00I have not yet read Ayala or Hull carefully enough...I have not yet read Ayala or Hull carefully enough, or looked at whatever Darwin correspondence and so on they cite. But on the face of it, it seems just as you say. Even if Darwin developed his hypotheses early after the Beagle, all that I know, from reading Voyage and his Geology books, and so on, is that he did as you say.<br /><br />His 8 years on barnacles seem to have been a way for him to convince himself about his theory.<br /><br />Anyway, from a philosophy and history of science point of view, as long as we accept that there are no rules for finding truth, and that there can be too-close adherence of a tribal kind, to theory as ideology, nonetheless it works (as I said in my previous comment)<br /><br />Very interesting, at least I think so.<br /><br />(How are you doing Ellen? It's nice to hear from you!)Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-41166181233302920902012-01-31T11:19:41.851-05:002012-01-31T11:19:41.851-05:00I think Sedgwick's fundamental problem was tha...I think Sedgwick's fundamental problem was that natural selection seems to take causation out of the hands of God. That is, his objections were primarily driven by his religious beliefs, even if he did in fact object to Darwin's methodology -- as Ken says, belief is behind much of the interpretation of science.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-75575684154784265592012-01-31T11:14:02.815-05:002012-01-31T11:14:02.815-05:00So was Sedgwick's argument that Darwin didn...So was Sedgwick's argument that Darwin didn't collect ALL of his observations before forming the theory? It seems to me that collecting some of the facts and then developing a theory via inductive reasoning and then collecting more observations to test hypotheses derived from this theory wouldn't violate the scientific method. But from Ayala's article, it seems this is the crux of the argument.EllenQhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04805375871164019260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-79909015867733858722012-01-31T11:11:38.490-05:002012-01-31T11:11:38.490-05:00What this all shows is that science is a social en...What this all shows is that science is a social endeavor without externally established rules of what counts towards an understanding of 'truth'. Induction, prediction, deduction, and so on are all part of it. <br /><br />But, yes it sounds post-modern but it's true nonetheless, we operate largely on belief. We accept what we believe and try our damndest to prove it (not, contrary to widespread self-flattery, to falsify our ideas). We modify data or results, or stastically based decision-making to suit our predilections.<br /><br />This what Thomas Kuhn and Ludwik Fleck argued essentially was how science worked. We never know when the next bend in the road will overturn some cherished idea. We never know if we're getting to 'the' truth (assuming there is such a thing), but we do get closer agreement between facts and ideas about them.<br /><br />So, it is an informal, sociological, sloppy, egotistical, empirical, informal method...but works--perhaps amazingly!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-60502680048861871992012-01-31T11:10:09.597-05:002012-01-31T11:10:09.597-05:00Thanks so much Ken and Anne. This is a fantastic p...Thanks so much Ken and Anne. This is a fantastic post and comment thread.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-39842593312355091092012-01-31T10:42:34.973-05:002012-01-31T10:42:34.973-05:00The Ayala link: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/su...The Ayala link: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10033.fullAnne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-91701533521384837512012-01-31T10:41:42.858-05:002012-01-31T10:41:42.858-05:00So, what did Darwin himself think about his method...So, what did Darwin himself think about his methods? A quick search comes up with a 2009 paper by Francisco Ayala in PNAS -- "Darwin and the scientific method". Ayala says that Darwin claimed he used "true Baconian [inductive] principles and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale.” He also wrote, “How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!” <br /><br />But, Ayala says that what Darwin said he did and his actual practice were in contradiction. "Darwin claims to have followed the inductionist canon prevalent among British contemporary philosophers and economists, such as John Stuart Mill (1), and earlier authorities, notably the statesman and philosopher, Francis Bacon in his Novum Organum (2). The inductionist canon called for making observations without prejudice as to what they might mean and accumulating observations related to a particular subject so that a universal statement or conclusion could eventually emerge from them. Indeed, in one place in his Autobiography, Darwin affirms that he proceeded “on true Baconian principles and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale” (ref. 3, p. 119).<br /><br />The facts are very different from these claims, however. Darwin's notebooks and private correspondence show that he entertained the hypothesis of the evolutionary transmutation of species shortly after returning from the voyage of the Beagle and, all important, that the hypothesis of natural selection occurred to him in 1838; several years before he claims to have allowed himself for the first time“to speculate on the subject.” Between the return of the Beagle on October 2, 1836, and publication of Origin of Species in 1859 (4) (and, indeed, until the end of his life), Darwin relentlessly pursued empirical evidence to corroborate the evolutionary origin of organisms and to test his theory of natural selection, which he saw as the explanatory process accounting for the adaptive organization of living beings and their diversification and change through time."<br /><br />And indeed, he builds his argument in Origin so beautifully, his theory blossoming before our very eyes. But of course he knew where he was headed all along. <br /><br />Does this perhaps fast and loose use of accepted methodology mean his conclusions are wrong? Of course not.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-38730933075595322532012-01-31T09:45:41.637-05:002012-01-31T09:45:41.637-05:00From a letter from Sedgwick to Darwin, after readi...From a letter from Sedgwick to Darwin, after reading Origin (the whole letter is here: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2548):<br /><br />I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous—f5 You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon.f6 Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?.— As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-50931475145865424842012-01-31T09:44:36.822-05:002012-01-31T09:44:36.822-05:00Darwin would probably say that he used observation...Darwin would probably say that he used observations first to develop his theory then used other observations to 'confirm' it--to show their consistency with it. <br /><br />He did comment on this, but I don't know what he said, so I'm speculating. He certainly did not concede that evolution had no scientific standing, however!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-70005851876404942142012-01-31T09:31:13.471-05:002012-01-31T09:31:13.471-05:00Holly, Sedgwick criticized Darwin for having devis...Holly, Sedgwick criticized Darwin for having devised his theory, and only then coming up with the facts to support it, rather than the other way around. That is, Sedgwick felt that Darwin didn't make all his observations, and then draw his conclusion -- induction -- but the other way around. As Sedgwick said, "I look on the theory as a vast pyramid resting on its apex, and that apex a mathematical point."<br /><br />Of course Darwin did make and collect a lot of observations before he published his theory. But, Sedgwick's argument is that he didn't make his observations before he devised his theory. That is, his observations confirmed his theory, not lead to it.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-82748587769470881822012-01-31T09:26:25.278-05:002012-01-31T09:26:25.278-05:00It's, to me, rather elusive, and I need to rea...It's, to me, rather elusive, and I need to read some more on this, which is on my urgent stack, if my university would ever leave me alonel ong enough to read it! But basically I think Sedgwick's idea is that Darwin seemed to agree that evolution only occurred once so that it is a kind of hypothesis that he developed, from observation, but not from induction. He didn't observe global evolution happening in many earths, for example, and indeed he never actually observed species evolving out of prior species.<br /><br />Thus, he formed a theory and fit data to it, so to speak, but other kinds of theory could also fit the data. Darwin extrapolated from artificial selection as in agricultural (or pigeon) breeding, but that had never generated a new species. So this was an hypothesis without the proper foundation, the argument went.<br /><br />See David Hull, "Darwin's svcience and Victorian philosophy of Science" in the Cambridge Companion to Darwin, if your university library has it (or I can send a reprint).<br /><br />Evolution is deductive in that we predict many things about variation in life from the theory of evolution, and we attribute things to drift and selection and isolation and so on. But we didn't observe the same thing again and again. Selection and drift can produce similar results, and they are tested statistically, not like Newtonian forces that seem more clearly deterministic.<br /><br />On the other hand, we observe the result of evolution all over the place (in snails, humans, frogs, trees) and in that sense, since the nature of the pattern is similar, I personally would say that was inductive reasoning to formulate an evolutionary theory.<br /><br />So my point in this series is the immense power of the Darwinian approach, even if not everything is crystal clear, there are things we still strive to understand, and so on (as in any science). But without the Darwinian approach, our framework for understanding life is undermined--that is why so much of what we do goes back to evolution as the underlying explanation.<br /><br />Later in the series we will talk about first the historical aspect of the method, and then the functional and adaptive application.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-17477759949539112472012-01-31T09:12:11.822-05:002012-01-31T09:12:11.822-05:00Sorry for asking this Ken. You're probably thi...Sorry for asking this Ken. You're probably thinking, "I explained that in the post!" but I'm not comprehending it.Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-76828421472392657482012-01-31T09:10:27.738-05:002012-01-31T09:10:27.738-05:00Why did Darwin concede. Pardon my inability to tot...Why did Darwin concede. Pardon my inability to totally understand the different -ductions here... But what about the Darwiniam method was/is not inductive and what about it was/is deductive?Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.com