Is Evolution a Paradigm

[foodchain]

It seems science is loaded with paradigms, constantly in motion evolving in time all over the place via people working on it. Is evolution really a paradigm though? I mean of course evolution as it would apply to the realm of biologic inquiry mainly. I personally do not view it as a paradigm in any sense. I guess a better question may have been to ask if natural selection could be viewed as a paradigm, but I don’t really view it as one either.

 

I think that some aspects of science mainly get shown to be paradigms as the sciences come to exist in hybrid states. Though I don’t know how much you can discern the simple reality of differences with what happens to be a paradigm at any specific point.

[SkepticLance]

Evolution is, indeed, a paradigm. However, this may be misleading. The word tends to get used in relation to paradigm shifts, as part of one school of scientific philisophy. And evolution is seriously unlikely to change as a basis for the biological science.

 

Some aspects of evolution may be changeable, such as the distinction between slow evolution by minor genetic changes, and punctuated equilibrium. But that is another argument.

[ecoli]

Have you been reading Thomas Kuhn, foodchain?

[Daecon]

Darwin-based theories on HOW evolution happens could be considered a paradigm, just like Lamarck's theories on HOW evolution happens is a (now-defunct) paradigm.

[foodchain]

Have you been reading Thomas Kuhn, foodchain?

 

 

ha!

 

No I just wanted to here peoples views on evolution as a paradigm or not. My first learning’s of scientific paradigms actually came about in an English class if you can believe that, I never paid much attention to it until I started to notice people call various scientific studies paradigms, such as quantum mechanics.

 

Darwin-based theories on HOW evolution happens could be considered a paradigm, just like Lamarck's theories on HOW evolution happens is a (now-defunct) paradigm.

 

Yes but natural selection as in terms of then is different then it is now in terms of all the information content, yet the term itself still stands. I think for something to be a paradigm it would have to be proven to be primarily a work in progress as it relates to human understanding. Such as the big bang, I would not consider such to a paradigm, more or less just that its information content can change. With that being said I don’t ever see natural selection as it pertains to understanding in the life sciences to be defeated or to go away, therefore I don’t see it as a paradigm. I mean natural selection might pan out depending on variables, such as if you study a population of birds or fish, but the framework itself still stays.

[lucaspa]

It seems science is loaded with paradigms, constantly in motion evolving in time all over the place via people working on it. Is evolution really a paradigm though?

 

"Paradigm" was a word coined by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions. In Kuhn's term a "paradigm" was almost a worldview. For instance, Kuhn called geocentrism and Ptolomaic epicycles a "paradigm" because it encompassed a means of viewing the entire cosmos and our place in it. Kuhn viewed the shift to heliocentrism as a "paradigm shift" because it was an emotional and psychological change for every scientist as well as a shift in theory.

 

Most scientists and philosophers of science have rejected Kuhnian "paradigms" because Kuhn insisted that shifting from one paradigm to another involved mostly emotional content rather than data. IOW, a new paradigm, according to Kuhn, was not any more supported by the data than the old, but it offered a "better" emotionally satisfying story. Scientists like to think we change theories because of the data, not emotion.

 

Also, Kuhn insisted that paradigms defined reality rather than describe it. Thus, according to Kuhn, in 1400 the sun really did go around the earth but with the paradigm shift to heliocentrism then the universe changed and now the earth orbited the sun! Scientists reject that type of shift in objective reality.

 

Creationists/IDers love Kuhnian paradigms because of the major role emotion plays in paradigm shifts. Thus, they view the shift from creationism to evolution as being due to the emotional appeal of atheism. Of course, then scientists are reluctant to give up evolution, in this view, because it would mean giving up atheism.

 

So, I would suggest giving up the term "paradigm" rather trying to decide whether evolution is a paradigm. After all, Kuhn eventually gave up the term himself in a later book.

 

If you've got to borrow a term from the philosophy of science, Imre Lakatos' term of "research programme" would be more appropriate.

[ecoli]

"Paradigm" was a word coined by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.

He actually highjacked the term, he didn't coin the actual word.

[pioneer]

Philosophical or theoretical frameworks will set the mental constraints on how the mind will view the data. The results are often self fulfilling. Those who believe in the big bang will see the same data differently than those who believe in another competing theory. The data is valid and both are using valid data, but two philosophies create to different perceptions of reality. But if you ask the experts in either theory, they can both point to hard data. One can be totally wrong, but with hard data support. So it often comes down to emotional appeal. The BB theory originally had the appeal of the big bombs times a zillion. This is only trumped with n-dimensions. This gives the options of more big bombs or a peaceful use that trickles.

 

At the birth of the evolutionary theory, Darwin knew nothing of genetics, because this was not around at the time he developed his theories. Who knows if his original thesis would have been different. He was a brilliant scientist and would have try to include it. Animal breeding was around and sort of implies genetics. Darwin has these observations but this was sort of artificial. During his day there was the class distinction of the blue bloods and red bloods. Culture-refinement-education versus the vulgar masses was sort of a genetic theory. They were not suppose to cross breed.

 

Other theories, like survival of the fittest, was based on the blue blood genetics controlling the world. It had a certain emotional appeal for those who felt in the driver's seat. Not many people read back then, unless one was a man, was well off, or educated, with education limited. His target audience demographics were males, educated and blue bloods. From a simple marketing point of view, based on those times, he made the right the choice. It was not totally unbiased but had an appeal to that audience. Even now, the theory had the dominant male gets the females. It doesn't give enough credit to the female animal who has the more complicated job. The mitochondria come from the mother which was a epic selection.

 

The term natural selection, if you break it down into its words, sounds like mother nature is picking this one over than one, with the choice totally natural, i.e., favorite son. The opposite sort of implies this one was not selected because it was defective. That would also created an emotional appeal to anyone who felted selected. Based on that demographics and its emotional appeal we sort of continued on the tradition. I like the basic gist of the theory but there are still some traces of 19th century.

[lucaspa]

Philosophical or theoretical frameworks will set the mental constraints on how the mind will view the data. The results are often self fulfilling. Those who believe in the big bang will see the same data differently than those who believe in another competing theory. The data is valid and both are using valid data, but two philosophies create to different perceptions of reality. But if you ask the experts in either theory, they can both point to hard data. One can be totally wrong, but with hard data support. So it often comes down to emotional appeal. The BB theory originally had the appeal of the big bombs times a zillion.

 

Uh, no. Yes, some people will try to cling to a theory in the face of falsifying information. But remember, Big Bang replaced an established theory: Steady State.

 

You say "But if you ask the experts in either theory, they can both point to hard data." This is exactly why "data for" a theory is not very important. ANY theory will have "data for". This is why "data against" a theory trumps. You can decisively falsify via deductive logic, but you can't "prove" by either deductive or inductive logic.

 

At the birth of the evolutionary theory, Darwin knew nothing of genetics, because this was not around at the time he developed his theories. Who knows if his original thesis would have been different.

 

Genetics wasn't known. Inheritance was known. The prevalent theory at the time was "blended characteristics". And no, natural selection did not work under blended characteristics. However, Darwin stuck to natural selection 1) because the observations of all the parts of it was irrefutable, 2) it was a bulletproof deductive argument, and 3) it accounted for observations.

 

Darwin has these observations but this was sort of artificial. During his day there was the class distinction of the blue bloods and red bloods. Culture-refinement-education versus the vulgar masses was sort of a genetic theory. They were not suppose to cross breed.

 

Look, before you mangle history even more than you are, please read Desmond and Moore's biography Darwin. It will give you the correct social, political, and theological background of the times in which Darwin lived.

 

Other theories, like survival of the fittest,

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a shorthand or soundbite version of natural selection coined by Herbert Spencer. It is not "other theories". Natural selectoin was appropriated and misused by Social Darwinists for "blue blood genetics controlling the worl".

 

Not many people read back then, unless one was a man, was well off, or educated, with education limited.

 

Wrong. Literacy in England and American in the late 19th century was greater than it is today.

 

The term natural selection, if you break it down into its words, sounds like mother nature is picking this one over than one, with the choice totally natural, i.e., favorite son.

 

Oh good grief. Pioneer, this is a science forum, which means you should at least try to get the history of science right. Darwin used "natural" because he was already discussing, as you noted, artificial selection used by human breeders. Darwin was saying that this type of selection also happens in nature. Hence, natural.

 

Here is Darwin's summary of natural selection. Please note that it is a deductive argument: if the premises are correct, then the conclusions must be correct. I've tried to help you by bolding the premises and conclusions -- the "ifs" and "thens".

 

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, [then] assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

 

He actually highjacked the term, he didn't coin the actual word.

 

Who did he hijack it from? Before then, a "paradigm" had been used simply as "an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype". Kuhn invented a new definition.

[ecoli]

 

Who did he hijack it from? Before then, a "paradigm" had been used simply as "an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype". Kuhn invented a new definition.

He highjacked it from common use, like you said. A word coinage is the creation of an entirely new word and definition. A "Zero derivational" is the fixation of a new definition to a previous word (usually through common usage).

Hooray for semantics.

[lucaspa]

He highjacked it from common use, like you said. A word coinage is the creation of an entirely new word and definition. A "Zero derivational" is the fixation of a new definition to a previous word (usually through common usage).

Hooray for semantics.

 

OK. Learn something new every day. So you are using "zero derivational" as = "hijacked"?