[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Units of Scientiic Achievement



Let me clarify that I'm not dismissing evolutionary models of change in scientific disciplines. Stephen Toulmin's (1972) _Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts_ has a great deal to recommend it. I just wanted challenge an image species differentiation that seems to suggest too much distance among distinctive species. On the molecular level, I think we have more in common with yeast cells than the sciences in our time have with some pre-revolutionary "sciences."

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Tony Whitson wrote:

Andy, I don't think the analogy with evolution of biological species can really work.

There is tremendous kinship between us and chimps; and the commonalities among us, chimps and our common ancestors is unlike any commonality that you could point to between Ptolomaic and Copernican astronomy, or "chemistry" pre/post oxygenation, etc.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Andy Blunden wrote:

But the metaphor Michael is calling on, Carol, as I see it is "normal science" is the incremental, gradual adaptation of a species to its niche, and remaining much the same for millions of years, and on the other hand, when a species is under real pressure, you get exactly the process Kuhn describes in science: rapid diversification and die-outs, with a distinctly new species species emerging at the end. It's called "punctuated evolutuion" isn't it?

I find the idea of a formation perfecting itself into extinction attractive. As to "Intelligent design" - this has nothing to do with proof or disproof, Carol, but Faith.

Andy
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca