Wings

John Grehan jrg13 at psu.edu
Tue Sep 15 14:54:18 EDT 1998


I can't resist the temptation to add some further comment to those by  Neil
Jones and Mark Walker. Keeping leps in mind, I see these questions as
pertinent to
how we analyse and interpret lep biology, ecology, behaviour, morphology etc.


>> All of the squashing from those who feel they have attained a higher
>> understanding through some institution is nothing but dogmatic spewing, and
>> reminds me of Orwellian mind-control.

There can be some truth in this, not for all people all of the time, but
there can be a tendancy
for indoctrination, at least in the biological sciences concerning
evolution. I have seen enough cases where students are "protected" from ideas
that may be considered to extreme or untenable by faculty. However, this is
a normal kind of
social transaction as people have to make choices, scientists included,
about what
is worth their time or not, and worth forwarding to students.

 The other side of this is that there are libraries and there is nothing
preventing those
interested to dig deeper and perhaps sometimes formulate different perspectives.
In science there will always be a dominant (popular) view/s, and those less
so. The former
naturally get more attention. Minority views may be able to gain greater
acceptance, and
maybe not (I am a minority point of view in evolution, yet I do not
complain about not
having the opportunity to have the same level of impact as the majority).

>Science dogmatic? The word dogma derives from the greek and actually means
>the doctrine laid down by the  _church_.

There can, and have been, dogmatic views expressed in science, but they are also
open to challenge.

>Science is based around disprovable hypotheses.

So is witchcraft. When looking at science as research programs, disprovable
hypotheses may be
less critical in that one might disprove a hypothesis, but retain the
hypothesis anyway by
invoking an adhoc hypothesis to protect it.


>Creationism uses a series of pseudoscientific conjectures to trap the naive
>into believing that science can back their faith.
>Only those who believe in that faith believe these conjectures. Yet another
>example of the circularity of the argument.

I may agree in some instances. In others where creationists have criticised
representations
of evolution (such as whether natural selection is resonsible for given
structures), I
have been in concurance with that critique (of course I have a different
alternative view
to that provided by the creationists).

>
>Evolution exists.

In what sense? I agree in the sense that it is a reality with which my
research program works and informs me about the empirical world. On another
level I have no better assurance that evolution exists than whether
yesterday really happened!

 The theory of natural selection is a sound as Newtonian mechanics,
relativity theory etc.
(and the second law ofthermodynamics when properly understood :-) )

I agree with this, but disagree over whether natural selection is the only
major factor in generating
evolution.

>Natural selection exists. There are numerous examples of its effects.
>If you want a lepdipterous example look at the industrial melanism
>of the Peppered Moth (Biston betularia)

Agreed, but it does not follow from this case that natural selection is
necessarily the main
mechanism for (oops, a bit of teleoloy creeeping in) of evolution.

In closing I would also concurr with Mark about the strength of hostility to his
viewpoint. Perhaps hostility is too strong a word, but there was an indication
of perhaps indignation expressed about Marks views. While I don't agree with
Mark, and don't agree with the sometimes autocratic representation of evolution
by some evolutionists (that I have noticed in other venues on the web).

Sincerely, John Grehan



More information about the Leps-l mailing list