10.19.08
Popper right after all? Darwinism as a metaphysical research program…
From UD
The comparison of Darwinism with physics is interesting but misleading. The discrepancies noted by Kelvin presaged an entire transformation in the whole of physical theory. A similar situation applies up to a point in biology, or so it seems. But we have been waiting a long time, and nothing has happened. Physicists moved very rapidly to revolutionize their subject. But Darwinists just twiddle their thumbs and equivocate, patting each other on the back at their triumphs of pseudo-science (natural selection), and beating down those ‘other metaphysicians’, the design gang.
One difference is the absence of a mathematical method that greatly facilitates advance.
In fact, we should conclude that by comparison biology is not yet a science at all, and doesn’t follow the kind of sequence of paradigms we see in physics.
The whole foundation of the theory of evolution is a botch. Therefore it is not likely to follow any kind of Kuhnian scenario.
In fact, it seems that Popper got it right the first time: Darwinism, despite the protests of biologists have thought they have buried this barb, is a metaphysical research program!
So a paradigm shift seems improbable: you must first produce a science as a starting point. And that requires solving the key issues of metaphysics!
First, as philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, all theories are “underdetermined†by evidence. By that, he meant that, at any given time there is usually some evidence or circumstance that does not fit the theory. Progress in science often depends on studying these exceptions with an open mind.
For example, Lord Kelvin remarked in 1900 that there were just “two little dark clouds†floating around Newton’s classical “law of gravity†physics. They were Michelson and Morley’s measurements of the velocity of light and the puzzling phenomenon of blackbody radiation. Kelvin was quite sure that these troublesome little clouds would shortly be blown away. Yet modern physics advances—relativity and quantum mechanics—derive from these two little dark clouds, not from the theory to which they were an annoying exception.
Similarly, at a number of points, Darwinian evolution (the prevailing theory) does not accurately interpret the history of life. Here is one example: Almost all the major divisions of life forms came into existence about half a million years ago during the Cambrian explosion. Some have gone extinct, but few or none have been added. Darwin knew this was a problem, and he blamed the incomplete fossil record. We now have a much more complete fossil record … and it is still a problem.