Posts Tagged ‘scientific method’

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?

In this series, we will explore the difference between philosophy and science and specifically how the Scientific Revolution developed from use of the scientific method and how Darwin was eventually aligned between these opposing approaches to discovering the laws of nature – starting with Copernicus.

 Copernicus, by taking careful measurements to gather evidence, demonstrated that the Earth was not the center of the universe – rather, the Earth revolves around the sun. What made the key elemental difference was - the evidence. The evidence contradicted Aristotelian logic that had even crept into the Roman Catholic Church. The Scientific Revolution developed in concert along with a larger movement known as the Age of Enlightenment. In part, the movement was seeking to overthrow the Roman Catholic Church, which by the sixteenth century had even embraced Aristotle’s geocentric worldview.

 Driven to understand the universe as an act of the Creator, Copernicus wrote -  

 “The mechanisms of the universe, wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator… the system best and most orderly artist of all framed for our sake.”

 Copernicus died in 1543 almost immediately after publishing his findings in the epochal book entitled On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.

 While Copernicus’ escaped Roman Catholic Church rule, Galileo after confirming Copernicus’ findings was found guilty of “heresy” by the Inquisition in 1632. Thereafter, Galileo spent the last 10 years of his life under house arrest.

 Isaac Newton, after studying the evidence later in the eighteenth century, verified Copernicus’ and Galileo’s findings by using the scientific method. Newton is also known for discovering the laws of motion and gravity. When scientists at Britain’s Royal Society were asked in 2005 about who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Albert Einstein – the vote went to Newton.

 The question is – what made the Scientific Revolution a revolution? The answer is – the system of reasoning. Aristotle logic was based on deductive reasoning. The Scientific Revolution was based on inductive reasoning.

 We will be exploring these differences in this series of blogs. What do you think is the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning? Is the difference important?

After returning with the HMS Beagle in 1836, Darwin never left the shoreline of England again. Darwin took the enlightenment and unrelenting and grueling hardships of the voyage to construct a new purpose for life—writing. In his autobiography, Darwin explains: “As far as I can judge of myself, I worked to the utmost during the voyage from the mere pleasure of investigation, and from my strong desire to add a few facts to the great mass of facts in Natural Science.”

 Darwin goal was to achieve a noticeable place in history: “But I was also ambitious to take fair place among scientific men – whether more ambitious or less so then most of my fellow-workers, I can form no opinion.” Without question, Darwin has met that goal. Darwinism is today’s most contentious cultural and scientific topics.

The scientific method was not in Darwin’s toolbox, however. While Newton had demonstrated the value of the scientific method, for Darwin science stood in the way of the theory: “My error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.” For Darwin, the evidence was an obstacle, not a trump card.

Recognizng Darwin’s shroud of science, Richard Owen from the Royal College of Surgeons that had originally surveyed Darwin’s work declared that the Origin of Species was strictly an “abuse of science.” Actually, Darwin clearly acknowledged, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Had Darwin not gone “beyond the bounds” and adhered to the scientific method, would Darwinism have lead to such a stormy and contentious history?

Cambridge University

Without question, Darwin had a distain for Christianity. Darwin wrote, “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlasting punishment. This is a damnable doctrine.” This is a remarkable statement for someone formally educated to be a clergyman in the Church of England.

Perhaps Darwin’s angst against Christianity stemmed from his father’s insistence that he attend Christ’s College at Cambridge University. Or perhaps, Darwin’s angst stemmed from speculating based the perspective of uniformitarianism that championed by Charles Lyell. While on the Beagle Darwin read Lyell’s book, entitled Principles of Geology. Lyell’s theory contradicts any concept of a global flood. 

Yet, like Lyell, once the scientific method had been abandoned, Darwin was free to explore concepts beyond the evidence. Two years before the publication of the Origin of Species, in an 1857 letter to Asa Gray, Darwin wrote, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”

Ironically, even Darwin’s “bulldog,” Ernst Mayr, by the end of the twentieth century came to the same conclusion that “biology, even though it has all the other legitimate properties of a science, still is not a science like the physical sciences.”

Darwin had evidence, but the analysis was not bassed on the scientific method. Now 150 years later, the irresolvable issues could have been avoided had Darwin’s not reached “beyond the bounds of true science.” The convening of the Altenberg Summit in Austria this last summer highlights our entrance into the postmodern evolution era.