Re: Reply to B. Mitchell, P. Davidson

[ACSLKS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx id <01HN0I1Z14008Y7115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 13 Feb 1995 20:39:37 -0400 (EDT)]

> Lonnie Stevans writes:
>
> >without these tools we would be stuck in a discipline with nothing but
> >untestable hypotheses ..
>
> In Lonnie Stevans sense the whole field of Darwinian biology is stuck with
> nothing but untestable hypotheses.  Nevertheless, much as in the science
> of undesigned market order, Darwinian biology has a rival explanation for
> the adaptive features of biological organisms that is fully contingent -- i.e
> has other rivals -- and is most plausible -- i.e. makes a good causal expla-
> nation.  We can't 'test' the theory of natural selection in Stevans sense,
> but this theory does offer us our best account of the source of adaptations
> and the orgin of species.  Biologists are willing to give up the demand for
> 'testing' in order to retain this most powerful yet 'untestable' hypothesis.
>
> Greg Ransom
> Dept. of Philosphy
> UC-Riverside
>

I am not that extreme!! There is empirical evidence for natural selection.  One
can view the problems with "testing" hypotheses in Darwinian biology as
stemming from an inadequate sample size.  But this by no means "invalidates"
the theory--just makes it untestable utilizing techniques that demand
repetition.

Without some way of generalizing to larger groups or populations, we are all
doomed to using anectodal evidence--or what I call "casual empiricism."  There
seems to be enough of that going around nowadays, just watch the
media/political debates on welfare reform.

Lonnie K. Stevans