I submit the name of Robert Koch (1843-1910) as a true scientist who has influenced the lives of most of the population of the earth. He pioneered methodology in microbiology and his principles for "identifying the etiologic agent of a disease"(1) are used to this day. Koch's Postulates are emblematic of the scientific principle, and have been not just verified, but were useful from the start, when Koch used these steps to positively identify the anthrax bacilli as the cause of the disease. These principles have produced countless identifications of bacterial disease resulting in the possibility for cures. Within this framework, Alexander Fleming discovered that Penicillium notatum killed the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus, and antibiotics were born. The effect on the world's population is unmeasurable, and it is hugely, if not totally, positive. It is scientific and without philosophical undercurrents. Because of that, Koch is little known outside the arena of microbiology.
Koch's lab also discovered antitoxins and antibodies, and Koch's student, Paul Ehrlich developed theories of active and passive immune response.
This was true science. And it required no input from Darwin or evolutionary hypotheses in any manner. Nor did Pasteur's demonstration of the ability of vaccination to produce immunization, or Avery, MacLeod and McCarty's discovery of DNA as the carrier of genetic information, or Watson and Crick's double helical model for the structure of DNA.
It should not go unnoticed that none of these, or many other advances, carry the philosophical implications that Darwin's hypothesis did. Darwin is famous not for the import of the science (which compared to the above is marginal), but for the implications of the philosophy accompanying evolution, that of philosphical materialism. This was siezed upon immediately by radical activists and revolutionary philosophers around the world, and was carried into horrible consequences in the 20th century.
Darwin a science superstar? Compared to the likes of Koch, Lister, Pasteur, and others, I personally think it is an overstatement.
(1)Principles of Microbiology; R.M.Atlas, 1995.
8 comments:
Actually, while it is true that Watson and Crick did not use evolutionary theory to deduce DNA's structure, they employed inferential reasoning and were inspired by the inferential reasoning of others, much as Darwin did.
For example, they made an inference from 'Chargaff's Rule' that there was something non-random about the distinctive ratio of nucleotide pair bonding. They also were both independently struck by the inferences made by Erwin Schrodinger in a book published in 1944 called "What is Life?" which featured virtually no evidence or mathematical deductions.
The stark divide you would have us believe exists between (on the one hand) chains of inferential reasoning and direct experiment evaporates when you actually look closely at the history of science. Consider this nuanced discussion of Koch's work:
http://202.114.65.51/fzjx/wsw/newindex/wswfzjs/pdf/koch.pdf
Of course the divide is between inference used in hypothesis formation which is then experimentally verifiable, and inference that becomes "explanatory theory" (by default due to a lack of a better hypothesis). When the chain of the scientific method is halted at the "inference level", then the science is not complete is it?
I have never said that inference is not necessary for science. What I have said that an hypothesis that is stuck in its inferences without empirical validation is conjecture, not science. When it is afforded more "scientific" honor/reverence than it actually commands (being speculation), it becomes a system of belief amongst those who deny a belief system.
I have a serious question: When you say that it is an "overstatement" to call Darwin a "science superstar," are you conceding that Darwin was, nevertheless, a good scientist?
Or are you part of the 0.01% minority that considers evolution to be bad or non-science?
Just trying to figure out what your post means.
Actually the "suprstar" comment was in reference to a statement made by Scott, where he said that even without evolution by selection that Darwin qualified as a superstar of his century.
My impression of Darwin is that he did in fact become a stalwart note-taker and inference maker who pursued the inductive portion of science quite well. His curiosity and output over his career was prodigious. The science of the day was not yet bound by a "scientific method" as we know it now, and had not yet differentiated itself out of the philosophies and into the realm of disciplines - that happened near and after the turn of the century.
Darwin derived an inference that had extreme philosophical impact on groups that hungered for the respectability that scientific back-up provided. For example, Karl Marx wanted to dedicate his book to Darwin (Darwin declined); but the inference of scientific justification for Atheism became the driving factor that led to Darwin's fame. For that Darwin is not responsible, nor is he responsible for social Darwinism or for the holocaust, etc. However to say that Darwinism provided a sense of scientific legitimacy to these is entirely valid.
As for the science, it is still revered far beyond its ability to persuade, if one needs empirical results in order to be persuaded. In fact, the demolition of the vaunted "tree of life" is now underway, and the importance of "selection" is found to be much less, if any real part of our origin. In fact, the concept of "species" is under revision, due to the obvious injection of lateral transfer of genes, a phenomenon just recently appreciated. In fact, the idea of "species" may be eliminated totally one suspects.
My opinion of the science is that it is embryonic, even now after 150years. It does not offer empirical satisfaction, and the claims for its impact are outrageously overstated. Biology would not falter and stop if evolution were declared false.
.01% minority? I take that to be an inference that is based on no data whatsoever. Faulty inference plagues evolutionary theory, too. Science, modern science anyway, requires more than inference.
1. As far as I can tell, the Marx-dedication point is entirely urban legend. In any event, this is the cheapest sort of guilt-by-association, on the order of the Nazis who dismissed Einstein as sounding kind of Jewish.
2. I stand by .01% minority comment; if anything, that is overly generous to the creationist community. The Discovery Institute has managed to persuade less than 700 people to sign its "Dissent From Darwin" document (many of them fraudulently), and there are literally millions of Ph.Ds in the world.
Here, let's try it this way: what's your explanation for the overwhelming consensus among scientists that evolution is true? Is it some sort of vast atheist conspiracy? Or collective incompetence? Or what?
I just think that evidence from the natural world trumps the desire of the armchair philosopher to make any activity called 'science' conform to their experience. We have a very large collection of facts which evolutionary theory explains very satisfactorily in terms of natural causes, and in many cases the facts in our possession were predicted by applying evolutionary theory.
What other cause could've led Darwin to predict, for example, the future discovery of transitional fossils between birds and dinosaurs, or between fossil land mammals and modern whales?
I would appreciate a straight answer to the following query: do you deny common descent in principle, or do you admit it is the best fit to the data? If it is not the best fit to the data, then what explanation would you like to propose?
Andrew T,
As for the Marx reference, it is taken from Himmelfarb, "Darwin and the Darwin Revolution", where correspondence between Marx and Lasalle is quoted, as well as Keith, "Darwin Revalued", p 234.
Your attack on the Discovery institute is of no consequence to me since I do not subscribe to ID. You may create any percentage you wish, if you do not choose to back it with data.
Consensus is not proof; there have been many consensi that have been overturned as science progressed.
Again what I object to is the assertion that evolution is Truth. No assertion of science is Truth. My guess is that most working scientists would agree.
Scott asks:
"do you deny common descent in principle, or do you admit it is the best fit to the data? If it is not the best fit to the data, then what explanation would you like to propose?"
First, the "transitionals" you state are not confirmed with DNA.
Second, DNA is continuing to demolish the vaunted "tree of life".
Third, the latest data suggests that lateral transfer of genes is far more dominant than selection.
Fourth, the entire notion of "species" will likely change or even be scrapped in the next few years, based on new scientific capabilities.
So here is my position.
1) Evolution is concluded from an accumulation of fossils that are declared to be species; other fossils are declared to be transitional species. This will be obsoleted by the redefinition or elimination of the term "species".
2) The presumption of future discoveries as proof should also include future discoveries of disproof, such as the proverbial precambrian rabbit. The science of the gaps is not a convincing argument.
3) There has been no lock-down empirical validation of anything concerning descent that I know of, despite my continual requests for such experimental data. So it is still apparent that the science is inferential at this point.
Now, what do I think? I think that committing heart and soul to such an hypothesis is an error in judgment, and I choose not to commit. This is especially true in light of the coming revolution in the understanding of genomes and their creation and transmission to subsequent generations. My opinion is that true science should be circumspect, objective, and not participate in fact-jamming into a prematurely reified Law.
Do I accept that the known data suggest common descent? No, I accept that there is insufficient information to "know" anything for certain, much less to call it a Law of nature.
Why are you so totally convicted of a non-empirical theorem? It is one thing to claim a probability when all the data is in. It is another to project a probability when the entire definition of the subject is under fundamental revision.
Why are you predisposed against circumspection and objectivity in the case of evolution?
BTW, ID is also inferential and probabilistic, which is why evolutionists reject it, as do I. However, evolutionists accept their own inferences and probability estimations as Truth. Why is that legitimate?
Post a Comment