John Edser  wrote:

> > JW:-
> > Larry is conceited only, so far as I can tell, in that he is so damned
> > often *right* (there Larry, I said it publicly). His appeals to
> > authorities (plural) are appeals to the standard references in science,
> > or to current solid research. I don't always agree with him, but I have
> > to think hard when I don't.
> > 
> > Please let us know how one can do science without citing anyone or using
> > the results of other people's research. I'm just a philosophy graduate,
> > so it may turn out interesting...
> > 
> > JE:-
> > Just read Darwin.
> 
> JW:-
> What does that mean, John? If you read Darwin, and in particular if you
> read his "big species book" or his published papers, you find he
> constantly cites people and uses their results. He did his own research,
> but even then and even he could not do it without reading and using
> other people's work. Nobody since Buffon has, and even he used and
> readothers.
> 
> 
> JE:-
> The author wrote:
> "Please let us know how one can do science 
> without citing anyone or using
> the results of other people's research"
> 
> 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. I am simply suggesting that
> Darwin was a self sufficient scientist 
> because he was the pioneer in the field
> so he did not need to cite anybody.
> 
> 
> Reading Darwin is one of the best ways 
> to observe a genius actually doing
> science.
> 
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. 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).

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.


-- 
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 4/5/04 7:07:55 PM