Publication: Georgia Journal of Science
Publication Date: 22-SEP-05
Format: Online - approximately 3847 words
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Pigliucci, Massimo ; Banta, Joshua ; Bossu, Christen ; Crouse, Paula ; Dexter, Troy ; Hansknecht, Kerry ; Muth, Norris
Article Excerpt
Massimo Pigliucci, Joshua Banta, Christen Bossu, Paula Crouse, Troy Dexter, Kerry Hansknecht and Norris Muth. This article was written jointly by Professor Massimo Pigliucci and the members of his graduate class on evolutionary thinking, Department of Ecology & Evolution, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Reprinted with permission and aknowledgement to Rick Lewis, Editor, Philosophy Now, London, U.K. This article appeared in issue 46, 2004. http://www.philosophynow.org/issue46/46pigliucci.htm and http://www.rationallyspeaking.org
Massimo Pigliucci
Dept. of Ecology and Evolution
State University of New York at Stony Brook
650 Life Sciences Building
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245
The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is the currently accepted paradigm to explain the history and diversity of life on earth. Yet, since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species it has been under attack on a variety of grounds. Some of these criticisms have been put forth in the philosophical arena, where evolutionary theory has often been accused of being incoherent or logically fallacious.
Perhaps the best-known philosophical criticism of evolution has been put forth by Karl Popper, who once claimed that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program" (1). Famously, Popper retracted his comments, once it was explained to him that there was quite a bit more to the theory of evolution than he had understood from a cursory examination of the subject: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (2).
Peter Williams (3) listed a bewildering array of eleven logical fallacies allegedly committed by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in a variety of his writings. In what follows we reexamine each of the fallacies and comment on the extent to which Dawkins actually commits them. This article is not meant as a defense of Dawkins (who can surely take care of himself), but rather as a stimulating exercise tackling the logical framework of modern evolutionary theory and its real or perceived philosophical implications.
THE ALLEGED FALLACIES
1. Self-Contradiction -- a statement that refers to and falsifies itself.
Williams quotes an open letter of Dawkins to his daughter, in which he advises her to think for herself, determine if a claim is being made on the basis of evidence or authority, and ask for evidence whenever somebody claims to know the truth. The problem allegedly is that Dawkins is conflating evidence with empirical evidence, from which it apparently derives that Dawkins also equates knowledge with scientific knowledge. Since the latter position is not itself based on empirical evidence, it follows that Dawkins contradicts himself by suggesting a course of action to his daughter that cannot actually be backed up by the very methods proposed by Dawkins.
We feel Williams is reading too much into Dawkins' advice. Dawkins starts out by simply suggesting a sensible course of action to his daughter whenever faced with evaluating somebody's claim to truth; he is not saying that his advice is scientific, nor is he equating knowledge with scientific knowledge. As for what counts as evidence, the American Heritage Dictionary defines the latter as: "the available facts, circumstances, etc., indicating whether or not a thing is true or valid." From this perspective, most evidence is in fact empirical. The only exception would be mathematical or logical reasoning, although most people wouldn't think of this as 'evidence' so much as a 'reason' in favor of a certain conclusion. Finally, empirical (but not necessarily scientific) evidence for Dawkins' statement could be brought in: one only needs to compare the number...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.
More articles from
Georgia Journal of Science
Reptiles and amphibians of Boy Scout Camp Linwood-Hayne: results from an undergraduate-initiated three year opportunistic inventory., 22-SEP-07
Amphiuma (Caudata: Amphiumidae) from the Pleistocene Clark Quarry local fauna of coastal Georgia, 22-JUN-07
GAS President's comments and report from the Academy Council, 22-JUN-07
Looking for additional articles?
Click here to search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Click here to search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information. |
