John Edser  wrote:

> > > JE:-
> > > Reading Darwin is one of the best ways
> > > to observe a genius actually doing
> > > science.
> 
> > JW:-
> > There's a difference bewteen citing other people because you are using
> > their ideas (which is a Good Thing too) and citing others because you
> > are using their work to support your own ideas, which is what Darwin
> > did. But citing others' work to support a claim is neither appeal to
> > authority nor something that bars it from being research. If it happens
> > those folk are the leading researchers in a field, then *not* citing
> > them is evidence of a lack of knowledge on your own part.
> 
> > JE:-
> > OK
> 
> > JW:-
> > If they are
> > themselves a general review of a topic, then one assumes *they* have
> > cited the relevant authorities, and it *still* isn't an appeal to
> > authority. Which none of my logical texts even *calls* a fallacy, by the
> > way (if it is an appeal to *illicit* authority, then it's a fallacy
> > called "of Irrational Evidence" by Boyce Gibson).
> 
> > JE:-
> > An appeal to authority is false if that authority is
> > only based on a non testable theory or the theory
> > the authority holds stands refuted. Also, if an
> > authority attempts to evade refutation of a testable
> > theory it holds or discriminates against a testable
> > theory it does not hold, then it proves itself to
> > be an irresponsible authority which must hinder
> > the evolution of scientific ideas.
> 
> JW:-
> Then the fallacy is ad hominem, appeal to illicit evidence, amphiboly or
> one of a number of other fallacies. Appealing to authorities is not, in
> itself, fallacious. And, as it happens, it is a necessary aspect of
> science of *any* kind.
> 
> JE:-
> OK. Why not be more explicit?
> An "appeal to authority" is valid, if and only if,
> that authority remains based on a testable theory, i.e.
> a theory of nature that could be refuted but isn't
> and is also able to provide a confirmed verification
> that no other theory on the table can provide.

Appeals to [legitimate] authority can include also reliable reports
(observations and data sets), experimental outcomes, analyses that
exceed the capacity of the individual citing them (if R. A. Fisher
analysed your work, you'd tend to defer), and so forth. Theory is often
not directly or even indirectly involved.

> Within gene centric Neo Darwinism this is not the
> case but it is the case within organism
> centric Darwinism. Thus, Darwinism remains today's
> evolutionary authority and today's Neo Darwinism.

I can't parse this.
> 
> 
> > JW:-
> > As to Darwin's work - he could never have done what he did without the
> > work and expertise of others. You have only to read his letters, or his
> > appeals in such places as the Gardener's Chronicle for evidence and the
> > experience of seasoned breeders or cilvitators. He corresponded with
> > folk from around the world, in India, America, South America, South
> > Africa, and the Antipodes. Even his ex-butler in Sydney got the job of
> > collecting Australian specimens.
> > Darwin cited people like De Candolle, Buffon, Owen, von Baer, Kölreuter,
> > Gärtner, and a host of others. It's on nearly every page of the Origin.
> 
> > JE:-
> > OK. I will just add (by repeat) that:
> > Darwin's view of natural selection could not
> > cite anyone simply because he independently
> > invented it.
> > Darwin did use some results of other peoples
> > research but the results of his own research
> > were sufficient.
> 
> JW:-
> Oh for heavens' sakes, John. Of *course* Darwin cited others - he cited
> Malthus, in particular, as the source of the inspiration, but he *never*
> did *any* experiments on natural selection. None.
> 
> JE:-
> I have never denied that "Darwin cited others".
> Obviously, none of us are an intellectual island.
> However, it was not so much that these others
> contributed but what Darwin creatively did with
> it. Where the famed Owen only saw fixed species because
> of religious bias Darwin saw non separated variants.
> Why? Because Darwin was only a naive naturalist
> (a rank amateur) as far as Owen was concerned.
> It was Huxley that had to take on the likes of
> Owen et al who given the chance, would have
> happily used their "authority" to crush Darwin.
> Darwin preferred to avoid such demeaning tribal
> politics and just concentrate on the science.

Owen actually tended towards species transitional forms, and was working
on an evolutionary accoutn when Darwin went public. And Owen also
afforded Darwin professional standing. History is more complicated than
simple moral tales permits. Huxley used Darwin to establish his own
professional standing in Owen's own territory, and so crystallised Owen
against Darwin. Had Huxley not been convinced (and as a
transcendentalist he was more likely on a naive reading to reject Darwin
than Owen), Owen would have become Darwin's main defender in all
probability. As it was, he tried to take credit for many of Darwin's
ideas in an early [anonymous - nobody said he was a *nice* man] review
of the Origin.

And variant forms of species were commonplace from 1840 onwars. Henrui
Milne Edwards and Alphonse de Candolle both stressed subspecific
variation, and several continental ornithologists did too. The "species
question" as it was then called focused on whether there was, in fact,
warrant for the Cuvierian notion that species were logical classes "in
the mind of God".
> 
> Where Malthus could only see death and destruction

This is also false. Malthus thought that economic selection would
generate fitter individuals (in the pre-Fisherian sense of "fit").

> Darwin saw natural selection. Mathus, Owen and Darwin
> all "saw" the same things as perceptual patterns but
> not as concepts (processes that may have caused these
> patterns). Malthus and Owen passed on their perceptions
> to Darwin but not, thankfully, their concepts. Darwin
> created his own concepts, which unlike theirs, were
> rigorous i.e. testable against nature. So did Mendel
> before Darwin and many others. You only have two
> choices: dictate what nature is or provide contestable
> theories of what nature might be and throw out the poorer
> view/views via the Popperian process of refutation. Science
> can only  deal with the latter. Authority, misused, imposes
> the former. When status and power are concerned uncivilised men
> are psychologically driven to use any means possible to maintain
> it. Such behaviour remains predictable from basic evolutionary
> theory.

This is vastly overstated and oversimplified. For a start, you have not
got the right interpretations of Malthus (see the introduction by
Anthony Flew to the Penguin edition), Owen or Darwin. And I address your
account of Popper (someone's, anyway) in my other post today.
> 
> 
> Because of the nature of natural selection (competition
> by default and not by intent), experiments on it are
> very difficult to do  even today. Artificial selection
> is NOT the same process but can achieve a similar
> result. However, NS can be observed and _measured_
> within nature. Science is mostly about many different
> _interpretations_ of the same documented observations
> where all these interpretations must be rigorous and
> be able to contest each other.

I partly agree.
> 
> 
> JW:-
> He did experiments on
> *artificial* selection, on dispersal by seed, on earthworm activity, on
> plant tropism and carnivorism. But nothing on natural selection.
> 
> JE:-
> What experiments on natural selection
> would you suggest he could have done
> at that time, that he did not do?
> 
> JW:-
> Moreover, nearly all the evidence he adduces to support natural
> selection is based on or directly the work or observation of others,
> although he does, of course, cite his own experiences during the Beagle
> voyage. Without that external support, nobody would have taken his
> hypothesis seriously.
> 
> JE:-
> Yes "Without that external support, nobody would have taken his
> hypothesis seriously" e.g. Wallace. This does not mean that
> Darwin was right or wrong it, just means tribal based prejudice
> predictably, remains endemic and can only be removed by the
> prerequisite of testability , i.e. scientific ideas must
> be able to be verified/refuted or they are not admitted.

And again, I partly agree. But you had better get the history right if
you want to mount a historical argument. Don't rely on textbook
histories. They are like flowers, designed to propagate ideas, not
support them, and like flowers they often mislead the pollinators.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher
> 
> PO Box 266
> Church Pt
> NSW 2105
> Australia
> 
> edser{at}tpg.com.au


-- 
John Wilkins
john_SPAM{at}wilkins.id.au   http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss" 
                                               - Francis Bacon
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/7/04 3:31:17 PM