Posts Tagged ‘scientific method’

Darwin’s preamble to the first edition of The Origin of Species includes quotations from William Whewell’s popular book entitled Bridgewater Treatise and Francis Bacon’s sentential work entitled Advancement of Learning. From different worldview, both Whewell and Bacon advocated the use of inductive reasoning—the scientific method.

 Bacon (January 1561 – April 1626) is noted as one of the founders of the Scientific Revolution that eventually lead to the establishment of the Royal Society by Charles II in 1660. Whewell, one of Darwin’s dons at Cambridge University, is credited for coining the term “scientist.” 

Taking a comprehensive approach to the study of evolution, Darwin presented the two different worldviews of Bacon and Whewell. Whewell, envisioning nature apart from a “Divine” intervention,

“But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this-we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws.”

Bacon, by contrast, envisioned nature as part of “God’s work,”

“To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both.”

Darwin teaches, by example, to embrace the exploration of diverse worldviews. Modern education should take Darwin’s approach and “teach the controversy.”

Darwin, in a letter to Asa Gray at Harvard University in September 1860, Darwin wrote that “embryology is to me by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of the theory.

Just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”

Writing in his autobiography, Darwin recalls: “Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal.”

Darwin’s premise was that the similarity between the structure and the embryo of animal and man was primary proof that man evolved from animals. In The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin writes in the first chapter that embryology provides the “ample and conclusive evidence in favour of the principle of gradual evolution.”

Darwin was not an embryologist, and instead relied on the work of others. In The Origin of Species, Darwin gave credit to Ernst Haeckel: “Professor Haeckel in his “Generelle Morphologie” and in [other] works has recently brought his great knowledge and abilities to bear on what he calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings. In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters [to establish evolutionary sequences].”

Based on what Darwin thought was scientific evidence concluded: “So again it is probable, from what we know of the embryos of mammals, birds, fishes, and reptiles, that these animals are the modified descendants of some ancient progenitor.”

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “Thus, as it seems to me, the leading facts in embryology, which are second to none in importance, are explained on the principles of variation in the many descendants from some … ancient progenitor”

During the twentieth-century, Haeckel’s embryos were prominently displayed in nearly every biology textbook, even though Haeckel eventually confessed that the drawings were fraudulent.

In January 1909, Haeckel’s confession was published as a letter in the Munchener Allegemeine Zeitung, an international weekly publication for the sciences, arts, and technology. In the letter, Haeckel clearly states that the drawings were contrived by “comparative synthesis” and not by accurate reproduction. Without the fraud, the expected evolutionary embryonic sequences had obvious gaps. Haeckel concedes, “a small portion of my embryo pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really ‘falsified’.”

Even more sadly, Haeckel’s only defense was that fraudulent practices were an accepted practice even by some of the “most esteemed biologists” of the day. Haeckel wrote, “After this compromising confession of ‘forgery’ I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises, and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of ‘forgery,’ for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised, and constructed.” Indeed the scientific method had been abandoned not only by Darwin and Haeckel, but also by a large segment of the profession of biology.

Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University and author of the famous overpopulation book, The Population Bomb, wrote in 1963 that Haeckel’s law now only has a leading role in mythology—not in science. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.”

Like Haeckel’s embryo drawings, the history of evolution  has been laced with an insidious legacy of fraud.

Evolution is a theory in crisis. Even students pursuing advanced degrees in science cannot grasp the basics of evolution, according to a new study by University of Guelph researchers.

The finding reveals evolutionary teaching is in chaos from elementary school up, said Ryan Gregory, a professor in Guelph’s Department of Integrative Biology, who conducted the research with former student Cameron Ellis.

The study was published in BioScience and is particularly timely, given that this year is the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of publication of On the Origin of Species, which underpins understanding of the diversity of Earth’s organisms and their interrelations.

“Misconceptions about natural selection may still exist, even at the most advanced level,” Gregory said.

“We’re looking at a subset of people who have spent at least four years, sometimes even six or seven years, in science and still don’t necessarily have a full working understanding of basic evolutionary principles or scientific terms like ‘theories.’”

Many previous studies have assessed how evolution is understood and accepted by elementary, high school and undergraduate students, as well as by teachers and the general public, Gregory said. But this was the first to focus solely on students seeking graduate science degrees.

The study involved nearly 200 graduate students at a mid-sized Canadian university who were studying biological, physical, agricultural, or animal sciences. When the students were asked to apply basic evolutionary principles, only 20 to 30 per cent could do so correctly, and many did not even try to answer such questions. Of particular interest to Gregory was the finding that many students seem less than clear about the nature of scientific theories.

“This is telling us that traditional instruction methods, while leading to some basic understanding of evolution, are not producing a strong working knowledge that can be easily applied to real biological phenomena.”

The outcome underscores the failure of single cohesive theory of evolution to emerge since the collapse of evolution’s Central Dogma at the turn of the century. Ryan Gregory’s study further demonstrates that education on an non-cohesive theory leads to chaos in the schoolhouse.  

To our question “Did Darwin use the Scientific Method or Aristotelian logic?”—the answer is Aristotelian logic, otherwise known as deductive reasoning. Darwin decidedly wrote -

“No other work of mine was begun is so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef.”

Darwin’s theory was “thought out”—even before Darwin had seen the evidence. This is Darwin’s “I Think” approach. Darwin was caught swinging on the pendulum between the scientific method and logic, a popular trend in certain nineteenth century circles. 

At the time, use of inductive reasoning was being challenged by the popular British philosopher – John Stuart Mill. Mill promoted the use of deductive reasoning over the scientific method. In ascribing to Aristotelian logic, Darwin argues –

“How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observations must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!”

Darwin continues –

“In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” 

Ironically, the facts were irrelevant to Darwin. The major problem with deductive reasoning is that the conclusions can be misleading, inconclusive, and even erroneous. Darwin even concedes in The Origin of Species –

“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point (evidence) is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions (hypothesis) directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.”

Darwin did not use the scientific method, a fact he acknowledged. Two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin succinctly states –

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Newton applied the scientifc method. Discovery of the natural laws of gravity and motion by Newton over the centuries have been steadfast and practical. By contrast, in abandoning the scientific method with speculations, Darwin developed a theory that continues to be widely contested.

Do you think Darwin would have developed a different theory using the scientific method?

Building on the success of Copernicus and Galileo, Englishman Francis Bacon established and popularized their inductive reasoning approach as the primary methodology for conducting scientific inquiry. The method of investigation became known as the “Baconian Method” – now more popularly known as the “Scientific Method.” Bacon wrote - 

“Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world.”

Bacon differentiated between “concepts” drawn from the “mind” and the “facts” drawn from the “evidence.” Concepts drawn from the mind can be influenced by prior knowledge, preconceived ideas, and traditions. Inductive reasoning limits the influence of bias.

In dedication to the estabishment of inductive reasoning, Bacon established the British Royal Society. Later in the nineteenth century, emphasis on the importance of inductive reasoning was further championed by William Whewell, a contemporary of Charles Darwin. To align with inductive reasoning, Darwin opens The Origin of Species with quotations from both Whewell and Bacon.

The question is, then, what is the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? The difference between the scientific method and Aristotelian logic centers on determining the primary and secondary factors – also known as independent and depenent factors, respectively. The primary factor is the independent variable and controls the secondary (dependent) variable.

With inductive reasoning, the evidence is the primary factor and the hypothesis is the secondary, or dependent, factor. This means that the evidence takes precedence over the hypothesis – rejecting the influence of the bias.

This is the Scientific Method and the only approach proven to discover the laws of nature. Expressed in another way, the evidence with inductive reasoning is a free agent, and hypothesis becomes a slave to the evidence. The evidence trumps subjectivity.   

Deductive reasoning takes the inverse approach and the evidence becomes a slave to the hypothesis. This is known as Aristotelian logic where subjectivity can trump the evidence. Bias can rule. These diffences can be illustrated in a table format.

Scientific Method and Aristotelian logic are antithetical methods of inquiry. The next question is – what approach did Darwin take?