Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology

A critical examination of Popper’s falsificationism as a methodological criterion of demarcation led to the development o f a supplementary means of distinguishing science from pseudo- science The discipline is made the unit of appraisal and its pattern o f historical development b used as the in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Anderson, Michael Laurence
Format: Others
Language:en
Published: 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10539/15546
id ndltd-netd.ac.za-oai-union.ndltd.org-wits-oai-wiredspace.wits.ac.za-10539-15546
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-netd.ac.za-oai-union.ndltd.org-wits-oai-wiredspace.wits.ac.za-10539-155462019-05-11T03:41:43Z Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology Anderson, Michael Laurence Evolution--Methodology Human beings--Origins Population biology--Methodology Evolution--Religious aspects Species--Evolution Group selection (Evolution) A critical examination of Popper’s falsificationism as a methodological criterion of demarcation led to the development o f a supplementary means of distinguishing science from pseudo- science The discipline is made the unit of appraisal and its pattern o f historical development b used as the indicator of demarcation. Results of a test of this indicator against astrology and physical optics accord with our basic judgm ents of these disciplines. The indicator effectively reveals that scientific creationism is pseudo-science, and that evolutionary biology is genuine science. Three fundam ental approaches to scientific investigation, viz. v erificationism , falsificationism and m ulti-cornered testing (M CT) are contrasted. MCT is distinguished by competition between hypotheses, which makes it more informative than at least the naive versions of the other two approaches. While competition does not produce immediate victors, it does make demands on theories, which can be augmented by prescribing a series of independent tests. The comparative method implies the existence of two types of evidence. Common evidence is that which io predicted or explained by two or more rival hypotheses. Discriminatory evidence favours one rival over the others. It is argued that in both the fields of species biology and speciation there have been instances o f over-relying on common evidence, o f indistinctly defining alternative hypotheses, of ro t following their logical consequences and of not using exisiing discriminatory evidence to adjudicate between these hypotheses. Species concepts and definitions of modes o f speciation are evaluated. Normative principles are suggested for defining species and other important terms in evolutionary biology, and for testing species concepts and modes of speciation. The advantages and limitations o f a historical indicator of demarcation and the merits and principles of the comparative approach to method are discussed and illustrated using the analoev of a mathematical game. Scientific crcanomsni is shown to have a coating of scientific method, but to have systematically violated fundamental methodological principles. D arn in ’* method in contrast, had a comparative structure, and distinguished between common *nd discriminatory evidence. While there are methodological problems sn evolutionary biology, these are shown to be minor in comparison to that four*! in to c n o fk ciratxxiiun. 2014-09-16T07:24:31Z 2014-09-16T07:24:31Z 2014-09-16 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/10539/15546 en application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf application/pdf
collection NDLTD
language en
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Evolution--Methodology
Human beings--Origins
Population biology--Methodology
Evolution--Religious aspects
Species--Evolution
Group selection (Evolution)
spellingShingle Evolution--Methodology
Human beings--Origins
Population biology--Methodology
Evolution--Religious aspects
Species--Evolution
Group selection (Evolution)
Anderson, Michael Laurence
Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
description A critical examination of Popper’s falsificationism as a methodological criterion of demarcation led to the development o f a supplementary means of distinguishing science from pseudo- science The discipline is made the unit of appraisal and its pattern o f historical development b used as the indicator of demarcation. Results of a test of this indicator against astrology and physical optics accord with our basic judgm ents of these disciplines. The indicator effectively reveals that scientific creationism is pseudo-science, and that evolutionary biology is genuine science. Three fundam ental approaches to scientific investigation, viz. v erificationism , falsificationism and m ulti-cornered testing (M CT) are contrasted. MCT is distinguished by competition between hypotheses, which makes it more informative than at least the naive versions of the other two approaches. While competition does not produce immediate victors, it does make demands on theories, which can be augmented by prescribing a series of independent tests. The comparative method implies the existence of two types of evidence. Common evidence is that which io predicted or explained by two or more rival hypotheses. Discriminatory evidence favours one rival over the others. It is argued that in both the fields of species biology and speciation there have been instances o f over-relying on common evidence, o f indistinctly defining alternative hypotheses, of ro t following their logical consequences and of not using exisiing discriminatory evidence to adjudicate between these hypotheses. Species concepts and definitions of modes o f speciation are evaluated. Normative principles are suggested for defining species and other important terms in evolutionary biology, and for testing species concepts and modes of speciation. The advantages and limitations o f a historical indicator of demarcation and the merits and principles of the comparative approach to method are discussed and illustrated using the analoev of a mathematical game. Scientific crcanomsni is shown to have a coating of scientific method, but to have systematically violated fundamental methodological principles. D arn in ’* method in contrast, had a comparative structure, and distinguished between common *nd discriminatory evidence. While there are methodological problems sn evolutionary biology, these are shown to be minor in comparison to that four*! in to c n o fk ciratxxiiun.
author Anderson, Michael Laurence
author_facet Anderson, Michael Laurence
author_sort Anderson, Michael Laurence
title Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
title_short Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
title_full Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
title_fullStr Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
title_full_unstemmed Aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
title_sort aspects of scientific methodology with special reference to evolutionary biology
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/10539/15546
work_keys_str_mv AT andersonmichaellaurence aspectsofscientificmethodologywithspecialreferencetoevolutionarybiology
_version_ 1719084239175024640