| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| | |pages=26 | | |pages=26 |
| | |isbn=978-0-89051-597-6 | | |isbn=978-0-89051-597-6 |
| − | |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hedtke+The+secrets+of+the+sixth+edition&source=bl&ots=VQBk7unu95&sig=3-pYZsIj2vzBHgcIbYEpexlVc9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FsOGUO2kCIKJ4gS-tYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> [[Darwin]] was criticised for using this method in the [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|Origin]] for there in it is assumed that the mere possibility of imagining a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place.<ref>{{cite book|title=Darwin and the Darwinian revolution|author=Gertrude Himmelfarb|publisher=Peter Smith|year=1967|page=273,274,334|url=http://books.google.no/books?ei=StgxUcXSEMSK4AS9qoBg&id=C0OTeANFU88C&dq=himmelfarb+Darwin+and+the+darwinian+revolution&q=transitions#search_anchor}}</ref> Adopting the logic of possibility is an unscientific way of avoiding criticism of a hypothesis and attempt to free it from the burden of proof because a critic could reply to conjecture and imagination only with conjecture of his or her own, what would pointlessly lead nowhere. | + | |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gvyHquVubDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hedtke+The+secrets+of+the+sixth+edition&source=bl&ots=VQBk7unu95&sig=3-pYZsIj2vzBHgcIbYEpexlVc9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FsOGUO2kCIKJ4gS-tYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> Effectively, the logic of possibility replaces one unknown mystery with another.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|For example, the assumably unknown causes of homosexual behaviour are replaced by insisting that such behaviour is result of operation of so called '' 'evolutionary enigma' ''.<ref>{{cite web|title=Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development|author=William R. Rice, Urban Friberg and Sergey Gavrilets |publisher=The Quarterly Review of Biology|date=(December 2012|page=343-368|acessdate=03.03.2013|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/668167.pdf?acceptTC=true|quote=This paper argues that sexually antagonistic selection can also be involved in epigenetic effects and explain the enigmatic high prevalence of several fitness-reducing human characters. ... Homosexuality is frequently considered to be an unusual phenotype because it represents an evolutionary enigma —a trait that is expected to reduce Darwinian fitness, yet it persists at substantial frequency across many different (possibly all) human populations.}}</ref>|group=note}} [[Darwin]] was criticised for using this method in the [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection|Origin]] for there in it is assumed that the mere possibility of imagining a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place.<ref>{{cite book|title=Darwin and the Darwinian revolution|author=Gertrude Himmelfarb|publisher=Peter Smith|year=1967|page=273,274,334|url=http://books.google.no/books?ei=StgxUcXSEMSK4AS9qoBg&id=C0OTeANFU88C&dq=himmelfarb+Darwin+and+the+darwinian+revolution&q=transitions#search_anchor}}</ref> Adopting the logic of possibility is an unscientific way of avoiding criticism of a [[hypothesis]] and attempt to free it from the [[burden of proof]] because a critic could reply to conjecture and imagination only with conjecture of his or her own, what would pointlessly lead nowhere.<ref name="Hedtke"/> The logic of possibility is native to [[postmodern science]] and [[scientism]], respectively; and it violates the borderline, until recently respected with dignity by great scientists, between what is known and what is not.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The counterfactual reasoning inherent to logic of possibility should not be confused with Gedanken (thought) experiment, an legitimate device of the imagination used, inter alia by brilliant practitioners like, for example, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Maxwell{{#tag:ref|For example, [[Maxwell’s intelligent agent]], referred to by secular scientist as 'Maxwell's demon', was a [[Gedanken experiment]] to help us to understand the dissipation of energy in [[nature]].|group=note}}, to investigate the nature of things without making factual claims about what had allegedly happened in the unobservable history of these things. |
| | | | |
| − | == See Also == | + | ==Adopting the logic of possibility in the Evolutionary thought== |
| − | *[[Fallacy of extrapolation]] | + | Following the [[Darwin]], the adherents of [[Theory of evolution]] also often encompass the logic of possibility in their asserts implying that things virtually construct themselves, the typical example is the book ''Climbing Mount Improbable'' by [[Richard Dawkins]]. Dawkins was criticised by Berlinski that<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book |
| | + | |author=David Berlinski |
| | + | |title=The Deniable Darwin |
| | + | |publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission) |
| | + | |location=Seattle, USA |
| | + | |year=2009 |
| | + | |pages=143, 231, 345, 377 |
| | + | |chapter=Denying Darwin: David Berlinski & Critics |
| | + | |isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3 |
| | + | |url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php |
| | + | |quote=In reaching this conclusion he has replaced one mystery with another. ...Until recently, the great physicists have … attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. ...The patch does only what they have told it to do. ... |
| | + | }}</ref>: <blockquote>''"It is one thing, however, to appeal to a path up Mount Improbable, quite another to demonstrate its existence. Dawkins persuades himself that because such a path might exist, further argument is unnecessary."''</blockquote> Impediments are simply directed to disappear by adopting language terms like: |
| | + | *''"There is no difficulty" '' |
| | + | *''"there is definite tendency in the right direction"'' |
| | + | *''"it is not at all difficult to imagine"'' |
| | + | The true character of Darwinian hypotheses has been exemplified by William Hopkins' criticism in which he pointed out that Darwin, unlike [[Newton]], made at any time but little use of the verb "to prove" in any of its inflections. His primary formula was "I think," "I am convinced," "I believe," and not "I have proved": |
| | + | *''"We may I think safely assume"'' |
| | + | *''"I think there can be little doubt that" '' |
| | + | *''"There is, also, I think, some probability in the view"'' |
| | + | *''"I am convinced of their accuracy; and if I had space, I could show that they are conformable with my theory"''<ref>{{cite book |author=Charles Darwin|title=The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for life |url=https://www.google.no/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&biw=1440&bih=775&q=I+am+convinced+site%3Awww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Forigin&oq=I+am+convinced+site%3Awww.talkorigins.org%2Ffaqs%2Forigin&gs_l=serp.3...167053.168727.0.169614.2.2.0.0.0.0.1048.1250.2-1j7-1.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.serp.pELabzHwQys}}</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | == Notes == |
| | + | <references group=note/> |
| | | | |
| | == References == | | == References == |
| | {{Reflist}} | | {{Reflist}} |
| | + | |
| | + | == See Also == |
| | + | *[[Epistemology]] |
| | + | *[[Exact sciences]] |
| | + | *[[Fallacy of extrapolation]] |
| | + | *[[Postmodern science]] |
| | | | |
| | [[Category:Methodology of Science]] | | [[Category:Methodology of Science]] |
| | [[Category: Pseudoscience]] | | [[Category: Pseudoscience]] |