stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (05/29/84)
<** Hypothesis: This line is visible. Proof: See hypothesis. **> >> Remember, the theory of evolution derives from a now abandoned theory >> of social progress. Shall we therefore abandon evolution as well? >> [this author] >I always thought the theory of evolution derived from Darwin's study of birds >and other animals on the Galapagos Islands. Both are correct: they just are answers to different questions. The intuition behind the theory of evolution was the theory of social progress, however, the method of verification (even to it's discoverer) required evidence from the physical universe (darwin's finches, in this case). Let's not be blinded by mythology. Science is not the work of dispassionate individuals working methodically towards some absolute truth. Every scientist brings their own preconceptions to whatever they study. These preconceptions constrain the possible theories that a scientist might use to explain physical phenomena. I submit as evidence that many of the ``great discoveries'' of science and mathematics were achieved by independant researchers roughly simultaneously. For example, evolution was also discovered by Wallace (?) [I'm not certain of the name], forcing Darwin to publish. The calculus was discovered independantly by Newton and Leibnitz. (I have many more examples...) In each case, the scientific hypothesis (or mathematical technique) was anticipated in the social philosophy of the day. Science does not occur in a vacuum. It is a manifestation of the most human of desires: seeking to understand the universe around us. Ultimately, this is the motivation behind theology and philosophy as well. Various apologists for science who attempt to remove this human component from science do it a serious disservice, both by devaluing the creativity of scientific research, and by furthering the notion of infallibility of ``modern science'' [deification??]. Let us simply remember the following: the value of a scientific hypothesis resides solely in its ability to explain and predict. Strangely enough, even this measure is not [and cannot be] independant of the culture in which it occurs. Either lack of inate intelligence or systematic discrimination can be invoked to explain the average socio-economic status of negros in America. Which explaination you prefer is a better predictor of your social philosophy than your scientific methodology. [PLEASE: before you flame on this, consider my careful use of the word *predictor*.] Recapitulation: The inspiration behind a scientific theory needs to be carefully distinguished from its method of verification. Science is a human endeavor, undertaken by imperfect beings trying to seek truth within their own context. Attempts to separate science from the scientist are misguided, as are attempts to prejudge scientific hypotheses on the basis of their inspiration. Stuart Kurtz The University of Chicago (ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart)