Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kitcher quote
3 views
Skip to first unread message
James J. Lippard
Jan 27, 1994, 8:17:00 PM1/27/94
to
"My approach to rationality accomodates the historians'
contentions that many of those who were on the 'wrong side' were
epistemically virtuous in at least some respects. Is it too
ecumenical?
[...]
"The label 'irrational' is most tempting when behavior that
appears to indicate the pursuit of nonepistemic ends is
accompanied by professions of devotion to the ideal of cognitive
progress. Sometimes people's decision making exhibits deviations
from progress-promoting processes that are hard to explain except
by supposing that the cognitive goals they explicitly honor are
not those that motivate their decisions. The hallmarks of such
cases are varieties of inflexibility, blindness or deafness. Thus
when scientists continue to defend their assertions by rehearsing
the same arguments, even when they have been presented with
criticisms and counterarguments that their contemporaries take
extremely seriously, when they neither reply to nor even
acknowledge such counterarguments, it seems that we must either
credit them with insights that are denied to the multitude or else
suppose that the conclusions the maintain are too vauable to be
risked by engaging in any kind of dialogue.
"Consider, in this light, the case of 'creation scientists.'
Ever since this group of critics of Darwinian evolutionary biology
achieved prominence, champions of orthodoxy have wanted to label
them as 'pseudoscientists.' The apsychologistic character of
twentieth-century philosophy of science influences the formulation
of the charge. If creation scientists are pseudo*scientists* that
must be because they defend a pseudo*science*, a doctrine that can
be distinguished from genuine science by its logical
characteristics. Philosophers shift uneasily at this, because one
of the great morals of the demise of logical positivism was the
difficulty--or, to put it bluntly, apparent impossibility--of
articulating a criterion for distinguishing genuine science (Quine
1951, Hempel 1951). Moreover, a sober look at the history of
paleontology will reveal that the creationists effectively espouse
what was once scientific consensus, not a scientific consensus
that was overthrown by Darwin in 1859 but one that began to erode
in the early years of the nineteenth century.
"The apsychologistic point of view has matters exactly
backward. There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about the
doctrines--no reason to castigate Thomas Burnet, or others who
held them, as pseudoscientists. The primary division is a
psychological one between *scientists* and *pseudo-scientists*.
The behavior of creation scientists indicates a kind of
inflexibility, deafness, or blindness. They make an objection to
some facet of evolutionary biology. Darwin's defenders respond by
suggesting that the objection is misformulated, that it does not
attack what Darwinists claim, that it rests on false assumptions,
or that it is logically fallacious. How do creation scientists
reply? Typically, *by reiterating the argument*. Anyone who has
followed exchanges in this controversy or has read the transcripts
of a series of debates sees that there is no adaptation to any of
the principal criticisms. One important example among many is the
creationist use of the second law of thermodynamics. For nearly
twenty years, the major exponents of creation science have been
declaring that the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible
with the evolution of life. Creationists have been in the
presence of people who have given lengthy critiques of their
objection and there is substantial evidence that their eyes have
wandered over some of the pages on which such critiques have been
printed. How has their thinking adapted to these critiques?
Apparently not at all, for they make no replies to them and
continue to present their ideas in exactly the same ways."
--- Philip Kitcher, _The Advancement of Science_, 1993, Oxford
University Press, pp. 195-196.
contentions that many of those who were on the 'wrong side' were
epistemically virtuous in at least some respects. Is it too
ecumenical?
[...]
"The label 'irrational' is most tempting when behavior that
appears to indicate the pursuit of nonepistemic ends is
accompanied by professions of devotion to the ideal of cognitive
progress. Sometimes people's decision making exhibits deviations
from progress-promoting processes that are hard to explain except
by supposing that the cognitive goals they explicitly honor are
not those that motivate their decisions. The hallmarks of such
cases are varieties of inflexibility, blindness or deafness. Thus
when scientists continue to defend their assertions by rehearsing
the same arguments, even when they have been presented with
criticisms and counterarguments that their contemporaries take
extremely seriously, when they neither reply to nor even
acknowledge such counterarguments, it seems that we must either
credit them with insights that are denied to the multitude or else
suppose that the conclusions the maintain are too vauable to be
risked by engaging in any kind of dialogue.
"Consider, in this light, the case of 'creation scientists.'
Ever since this group of critics of Darwinian evolutionary biology
achieved prominence, champions of orthodoxy have wanted to label
them as 'pseudoscientists.' The apsychologistic character of
twentieth-century philosophy of science influences the formulation
of the charge. If creation scientists are pseudo*scientists* that
must be because they defend a pseudo*science*, a doctrine that can
be distinguished from genuine science by its logical
characteristics. Philosophers shift uneasily at this, because one
of the great morals of the demise of logical positivism was the
difficulty--or, to put it bluntly, apparent impossibility--of
articulating a criterion for distinguishing genuine science (Quine
1951, Hempel 1951). Moreover, a sober look at the history of
paleontology will reveal that the creationists effectively espouse
what was once scientific consensus, not a scientific consensus
that was overthrown by Darwin in 1859 but one that began to erode
in the early years of the nineteenth century.
"The apsychologistic point of view has matters exactly
backward. There is nothing intrinsically unscientific about the
doctrines--no reason to castigate Thomas Burnet, or others who
held them, as pseudoscientists. The primary division is a
psychological one between *scientists* and *pseudo-scientists*.
The behavior of creation scientists indicates a kind of
inflexibility, deafness, or blindness. They make an objection to
some facet of evolutionary biology. Darwin's defenders respond by
suggesting that the objection is misformulated, that it does not
attack what Darwinists claim, that it rests on false assumptions,
or that it is logically fallacious. How do creation scientists
reply? Typically, *by reiterating the argument*. Anyone who has
followed exchanges in this controversy or has read the transcripts
of a series of debates sees that there is no adaptation to any of
the principal criticisms. One important example among many is the
creationist use of the second law of thermodynamics. For nearly
twenty years, the major exponents of creation science have been
declaring that the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible
with the evolution of life. Creationists have been in the
presence of people who have given lengthy critiques of their
objection and there is substantial evidence that their eyes have
wandered over some of the pages on which such critiques have been
printed. How has their thinking adapted to these critiques?
Apparently not at all, for they make no replies to them and
continue to present their ideas in exactly the same ways."
--- Philip Kitcher, _The Advancement of Science_, 1993, Oxford
University Press, pp. 195-196.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Wade Hines
Jan 29, 1994, 1:32:21 PM1/29/94
to
lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
<essay deleted>
DAMN! that was good. (or was it just the fact that I read it
with my morning coffee?)
Nope it was good. For a bit I was scared that this guy was going
to defend creation science - and do so with quality prose. That
would have been a first. But now I see that the ability to write
well may indeed be possitively correlated with the ability to think
clearly. I just hope I don't find that spelling is also so
correlated. (the inverse being falsely assumed in return)
But mostly, thanks James. Too large for a sig but I think I'll keep
it.
--Wade
0 new messages