Thoughts in a Haystack

In the aftermath of the "Altenberg 16" meeting and the extravagant claims about the impending death of Evolutionary Theory As We Know It, coming from creationists, sensationalist journalists and even from some within and about the scientific community who should know better, it is apt to review David L. Hull's discussion, in his seminal book, Science as a Process, of the tendency to declare the coming of great revolutions in science.

There is nothing new in such claims and, perhaps, no area in science is more prone to the phenomena than evolution. In retrospect, sometimes the claims are warranted -- the onset of evolutionary theory itself, popularly initiated by the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation by Robert Chambers in 1844 and put on a scientific footing by Darwin and Wallace, certainly qualified as a major change in scientific thinking. Conversely, as Hull points out, during the so-called "Eclipse of Darwin" at the beginning of the 20th century, "numerous authors argued that area after area of biology was incompatible with Darwinian versions of evolutionary theory," a death every bit as premature as Mark Twain's. Most, of course, fall somewhere in between. The "Modern Synthesis," for example, while it was a correction of the errors of the Eclipse of Darwin, was not, in fact, a monolithic "movement," despite the best efforts of its proponents to portray it as one. Hull quotes A.R. Templeton and L.V. Giddings observation that:

... the Modern Synthesis is often treated as if it were a single, unified view of evolution, yet as is evident to anyone who has read and contrasted the works of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright (three of the principal contributors to the Modern Synthesis from the population genetics viewpoint), there never was a single evolutionary theory.

[S]cientists are engaged in the ongoing process of jockeying for recognition in science. Some scientists exaggerate their differences with the received view to emphasize how original their contributions are, while others exaggerate the similarities between their views and those of contemporary Darwinians in order to throw the mantle of the great Darwin around their own shoulders. Their opponents then attempt to unmask these exaggerations. ...

From the beginning of their careers, scientists are presented with a dilemma. They can make their work look as conventional as possible -- just one more brick in the great edifice of science -- or as novel and controversial as possible -- declaring the foundation of a whole new theory or possibly even a whole new science. On the first strategy, their work is likely to be incorporated effortlessly into the greater body of scientific knowledge. If so, then they will get some credit, but not much. On the second strategy, the work is likely to be greeted with silence. If the author is especially lucky, perhaps an authority can be smoked out to attack these radical new views. However, if on the outside chance that these new views become accepted, the author receives considerable credit. The choice is between a safe strategy with minor payoff versus a very dangerous strategy that promises great rewards. From my own reading of the recent history of science, I see no strong correlation between my own estimates of the novelty of an idea and which strategy an author adopts.

... at any one time in his conceptual development Darwin toyed with a variety of mechanisms, settling strongly on one or another only for periods in his life. ... Darwin was not above changing his mind.

Darwinism was many things to many people. It was rank materialism, an atheistic attack on the Christian faith, unadulterated positivism, a death blow to teleology. Simultaneously it was irresponsible speculation, an outrage against positivistic science, a rebirth of teleology, proof of the beneficent hand of God, a Christian plot to subvert the Muslim faith. It was also an intellectual weapon to use against entrenched aristocracies, a justification for laissez-faire economic policies, an excuse for the powerful to subjugate the weak, and a foundation for Marxian economic theory.

Link - Posted by John Pieret @ 7:29 AM