Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[River Jordan]

It is not. It is literally just the claim that Darwin's family paid Wallace to go around the world then took his research and published it under Darwin's name. No sources, nothing.

Which is utterly stupid since Darwin and Wallace wrote and presented their paper together.

The 1858 Darwin-Wallace paper | The Alfred Russel Wallace Website

wallacefund.myspecies.info

 

[BCP1928]

They never come up really. Interestingly though the scientific method does, usually when we're designing a study, writing a proposal, or something like that.


Yep.


I don't doubt it, even though I'm not aware of any cases, except during the very early formative years of modern science.

It comes up in fields like quantum mechanics, but I'm beginning to wonder if you two are talking about the same concept.

 

[SelfSim]

I think I agree with most of what you're generally saying here, and that's why I wouldn't get into a knock-down, drag-out debate over your points.

Noted: You're not the one presenting resistance ..

But (small but here), some scientists seem to get carried away with their testing and theorizing and don't necessarily recognize that when they're testing some phenomena X that they may not be fully testing phenomena X as it is. So, some of the results of their tests are ..... provisional beliefs.

Yes .. (sort of).
'Phenomena X' is an objective model in science and is never 'the thing itself', regardless of what they believe they're testing.

I recognise 'a line ball' in the case of an hypotheses under test. Clearly the objective results of quite a few of them are a long time coming, so one might say they are a special kind of belief there .. which is why the term hypothesis is used to clearly distinguish them from 'a belief'. Hypotheses are tentative statements that don't have to be believed. In fact, this is why there is an emphasis on 'falsification principles' during peer and publication reviews .. aka hypotheses under test, are encouraged to be disbelieved, by demonstrations of 'falsification' test principles/criteria.

 

[River Jordan]

It comes up in fields like quantum mechanics, but I'm beginning to wonder if you two are talking about the same concept.

That's a good question. Most of the time I have little to no use for philosophical exchanges. They're just of no practical effect.

 

[SelfSim]

So what scientists do is irrelevant to how science is done?

Science is defined by its method.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They never come up really. Interestingly though the scientific method does, usually when we're designing a study, writing a proposal, or something like that.

That's interesting to know, really.

I don't doubt it, even though I'm not aware of any cases, except during the very early formative years of modern science.

Oh, I think you're right that more debates of any significance are from earlier on in modern science. But I was thinking more along the lines of the philosophical issues Einstein wrestled with as well those closer to home where we find the difference of opinion regarding methodology used to frame and evaluate the ToE, such as that which has been present between Philosophical Naturalists like Richard Dawkins and Methodological Naturalists, like Eugenie Scott. Here's one of my favorite piece-mealed video clips on this debate:

 

[SelfSim]

That's a good question. Most of the time I have little to no use for philosophical exchanges. They're just of no practical effect.

Spoken like a true scientist reaping the benefits of maintaining science's independence from untestable beliefs .. (whether those beliefs are distinguished by any given scientist, or not).

 

[River Jordan]

Oh, I think you're right that more debates of any significance are from earlier on in modern science. But I was thinking more along the lines of the philosophical issues Einstein wrestled with as well those closer to home where we find the difference of opinion regarding methodology used to frame and evaluate the ToE, such as that which has been present between Philosophical Naturalists like Richard Dawkins and Methodological Naturalists, like Eugenie Scott. Here's one of my favorite piece-mealed video clips on this debate:

But philosophical and methodological naturalism are two different things, so it's not proper to pit the two against each other when it comes to science. In science philosophical naturalism (the belief that there is no supernatural) is 100% irrelevant.

 

[BCP1928]

That's interesting to know, really.


Oh, I think you're right that more debates of any significance are from earlier on in modern science. But I was thinking more along the lines of the philosophical issues Einstein wrestled with as well those closer to home where we find the difference of opinion regarding methodology used to frame and evaluate the ToE, such as that which has been present between Philosophical Naturalists like Richard Dawkins and Methodological Naturalists, like Eugenie Scott. Here's one of my favorite piece-mealed video clips on this debate:

I am certainly grateful to have learned something of the philosophy of science at the feet of a Roman Catholic like Brother Edmund, and been spared from debates like that. But Ms. Scott almost gets it, even though she is an atheist ex-Protestant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But philosophical and methodological naturalism are two different things, so it's not proper to pit the two against each other when it comes to science. In science philosophical naturalism (the belief that there is no supernatural) is 100% irrelevant.

Right, I get that, but the weight of its irrelevance has been haggled over in the public domain by those who do hold to it, like Richard Dawkins, and those on the flip side of the same epistemic coin have also promulgated their own distinctive philosophical view, i.e. those in the Intelligent Design movement.

My point isn't to show that certain philosophical viewpoints in scientific methodology are needed as a part of science. Rather, my point is that the debate between scientists themselves is, itself, philosophical in nature and as such, philosophy as it fully "IS" as an entire field has to be utilized beyond mere rhetoric in order to deflect those like either Dawkins or Dembski from dominating in public schools or in scientific organizations. Or even in churches.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Noted: You're not the one presenting resistance ..

Yes .. (sort of).
'Phenomena X' is an objective model in science and is never 'the thing itself', regardless of what they believe they're testing.

I recognise 'a line ball' in the case of an hypotheses under test. Clearly the objective results of quite a few of them are a long time coming, so one might say they are a special kind of belief there .. which is why the term hypothesis is used to clearly distinguish them from 'a belief'. Hypotheses are tentative statements that don't have to be believed. In fact, this is why there is an emphasis on 'falsification principles' during peer and publication reviews .. aka hypotheses under test, are encouraged to be disbelieved, by demonstrations of 'falsification' test principles/criteria.

Yes, and it was interesting to hear Lisa Randall talk about some of that today, however partially.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am certainly grateful to have learned philosophy of science at the feet of a Roman Catholic like Brother Edmund, and been spared from debates like that. But Ms. Scott almost gets it, even though she is an atheist ex-Protestant.

You mention that you think Eugenie Scott "almost gets it." On which specific point do you think she's lacking?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not talking about mere accuracy.

Neither am I, really.

I may be confused about who you think these "some" are.

Yes, you may be. But that's ok. I've left a few bread crumbs for those who truly want to know.

 

[River Jordan]

Right, I get that, but the weight of its irrelevance has been haggled over in the public domain by those who do hold to it, like Richard Dawkins, and those on the flip side of the same epistemic coin have also promulgated their own distinctive philosophical view, i.e. those in the Intelligent Design movement.

My point isn't to show that certain philosophical viewpoints in scientific methodology are needed as a part of science. Rather, my point is that the debate between scientists themselves is, itself, philosophical in nature and as such, philosophy as it fully "IS" as an entire field has to be utilized beyond mere rhetoric in order to deflect those like either Dawkins or Dembski from dominating in public schools or in scientific organizations. Or even in churches.

The debates between Dawkins and Dembski over philosophical naturalism were political in nature because they were a direct result of creationists' efforts to get their material into science classrooms. The only way they could justify putting their beliefs in classrooms was to lie and say scientists were improperly imposing philosophical naturalism onto science and into science education. The hope was if the public fell for that, it would open the door to their beliefs about supernatural designers being acceptable science.

It didn't help that Dawkins showed up and gave everyone the impression that the people on the science side were atheists and really were pushing for philosophical naturalism to be taught to kids.

Take away the efforts of IDists and none of those things would have come up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The debates between Dawkins and Dembski over philosophical naturalism were political in nature because they were a direct result of creationists' efforts to get their material into science classrooms. The only way they could justify putting their beliefs in classrooms was to lie and say scientists were improperly imposing philosophical naturalism onto science and into science education. The hope was if the public fell for that, it would open the door to their beliefs about supernatural designers being acceptable science.

Right. That's how I understand the issues as well.

It didn't help that Dawkins showed up and gave everyone the impression that the people on the science side were atheists and really were pushing for philosophical naturalism to be taught to kids.

Yep. That hurt everyone I think, and Scott recognized that easily enough.

Take away the efforts of IDists and none of those things would have come up.

Exactly! ... but then the actual work of Philosophers, of all sorts, would still be needed to assist everyone in the various Sciences to think about their practice more wholistically and critically.

 

[River Jordan]

Right. That's how I understand the issues as well.

Yep. That hurt everyone I think, and Scott recognized that easily enough.

The good thing is it's effectively over. The IDists have given up (for now anyways).

Exactly! ... but then the actual work of Philosophers, of all sorts, would still be needed to assist everyone in the various Sciences to think about their practice more wholistically and critically.

I guess so, although I've never experienced that before. But we always welcome input.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The good thing is it's effectively over. The IDists have given up (for now anyways).

Have they? I haven't been in the middle of the IDists scuffle for several years.

I guess so, although I've never experienced that before. But we always welcome input.

Oh, I'm sure you have experienced it since philosophy actually is a part of our methods for living and even doing theology, and is applicable in an assortment of other human endeavors that the Bible doesn't necessarily teach or cover.

The sad thing is that people all too often use the term 'philosophy' without fully understanding what it even refers to in professional terms.

 

[River Jordan]

Have they? I haven't been in the middle of the IDists scuffle for several years.

It seems so. They stopped advocating for ID to be taught in schools and they closed their research branch (that never did any actual research) a while ago.

Every once in a while I'll check sites like the NCSE to see if there's anything new, and from what I've seen there isn't. The crusaders have moved on to other topics.

Oh, I'm sure you have experienced it since philosophy actually is a part of our methods for living and even doing theology, and is applicable in an assortment of other human endeavors that the Bible doesn't necessarily teach or cover.

The sad thing is that people all too often use the term 'philosophy' without fully understanding what it even refers to in professional terms.

I see. From that perspective you're correct. I was thinking of philosophers showing up at our office and going over our work with us.

 

[BCP1928]

You mention that you think Eugenie Scott "almost gets it." On which specific point do you think she's lacking?

Well, she is being contrasted with a materialist, but I get the impression--and I don't know how to put this clearly--that she thinks that if God "had something to do with it" it would be guidance imposed on the natural forces involved in the unfolding of evolution, even if undetectable by science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, she is being contrasted with a materialist, but I get the impression--and I don't know how to put this clearly--that she thinks that if God "had something to do with it" it would be guidance imposed on the natural forces involved in the unfolding of evolution, even if undetectable by science.

Is that what she means? I could be wrong, but from the literature I have on her, I wasn't under the impression that she thought about methodology in that way.