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.

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.
> 
> 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.

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. He did experiments on
*artificial* selection, on dispersal by seed, on earthworm activity, on
plant tropism and carnivorism. But nothing on natural selection.

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.

-- 
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 4/6/04 6:18:22 AM