Lomax, first of all, the kind words are appreciated, especially coming from yourself, in particular.
A few remarks on your post above:
You may have seen comments in the OP similar to the kinds of things these two scallywags have been known to say. As Shapin makes clear, however, all quotes are from distinguished scientists themselves; his point being that accusations of science denialism often have more to do with the source (outsiders) than the content itself.
For example, distinguished biologists who point to the tautologous--hence non-explanatory--nature of natural selection may well be taken to task for a (putative) erroneous understanding of the principle. It's unlikely, though, they will be subject to allegations of being
anti-science, let alone idiocy, dishonesty, and trolldom. (see above)
Always a possibility, friend. And I'm genuinely glad there are people like you to help keep me on the right path when I stumble, if indeed I have on these matters.
With regards to natural selection (I know BiV hates this so I'll be brief), I personally can't see how charges of tautology can be avoided. To evade the circularity, fitness (= well adaptedness) would have to be defined without reference to survival and reproductive success. No one has every done this! Be my guest if you think you can.
Now, if there is no way to characterize fitness without appeal to survival and reproductive success, the obvious conclusion to draw is that
they are one and the same thing. Didn't Einstein make a similar discovery with inertial mass and gravitational mass?
The problems begin when biologists--as they routinely do-
explain survival and reproductive success by appeal to fitness; i.e., explain a thing by appeal to itself. It's an exercise in circular folly (e.g. the Irish elk died out because it was poorly adapted).
(I'd be sincerely interested to discuss this with you at length, Lomax, assuming you wouldn't be bored to Limey tears)
That's not a position I hold, Lomax. What I would say, though, is that simpleminded claims of the kind "
It all comes down to evidence and logic" cannot be sustained. It's fairly easy to demonstrate, I believe, that non-epistemic (social, political, psychological, etc.) factors play a far greater role than is generally recognized.
Again, this is not a position I hold. Clearly, quantum physics, just to name one example, takes us far away indeed from the realm of common sense.
What I would assert is that any talk of a unique
Method which unites all, and only, the sciences is a chimera, as worthy of our belief as that of Santa Claus and Scotland winning the World Cup. Science, looked at
sub specie aeternitatis, as far as I can discern at least, is not privy to any mode of reasoning or inference that is not deployed by all the rest of us.
Why, Einstein said something very similar . . .
"
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”― Albert Einstein
Lomax » July 18th, 2020, 9:02 am wrote: Basic intuitions may keep us from throwing ourselves off the condo (or, depending on the circumstances, they may encourage us) but the mere crude accumulation of quotidian empiricism could not have given us the computer on which Mr Prescott types. That is of course why The Vat speaks of medical procedures.
Once more, I'm a bit puzzled why you'd say this, Lomax. If I were to take a stance on this, my position
vis-à-vis scientific epistemology would probably be closest to that of Bas van Fraassen's "Constructive Empiricism". It's generally regarded as an anti-realist position; by no means an anti-science one.
No one I know denies the instrumental efficacy of (some) scientific theories -- getting to the Moon, medical advances, and all that. What is disputed is the epistemological warrant for belief in the
literal truth of scientific theories which posit the existence of unobservables.
As history is our witness, a realistic stance towards even the most highly confirmed theories would have resulted in a commitment to entities and processes that, as far as we can now tell,
do not exist. And we don't wanna be like these God-botherers now, do we?
Mine is a
cautious stance, shared by many of the finest scientists themselves, that science ought to stay as far clear from metaphysics as possible.
P.S. re word games. Er, are you free now? :)