The trap of dogmatic skepticism

[axocanth]

I encounter many posters all the time whom I would consider dogmatic skeptics. By that I mean someone so against a particular proposition ( eg. that uaps, or ghosts, or bigfoot exist) that they won't even look at the evidence. This is not your normal and healthy skepticism--the kind we should all exercise when we encounter claims that sound extraordinary. That is a provisional and methodological skepticism that serves to help us in knowing the truth. That is real science.

I know I'm a few months late, but I'd just like to add a few comments. First, the hysterical reaction that a civil, intelligent, well written OP provoked constitutes further evidence -- as if it were needed -- for both the existence and prevalence of "dogmatic skepticism", a very felicitous turn of phrase, I might add.

"There's no such thing! It's an oxymoron!" the hysterics continue. I see nothing oxymoronic about it; Magical has described it very well. The dogmatic skeptic is the kind of person who -- as certain of Galileo's adversaries supposedly did -- refuses to look through the telescope at all.

Echoing Magical above, I also encounter such people on a regular basis, including a few on this site since joining just a few weeks ago. In my own case it's not due to an interest in the paranormal, UFOs, or anything like that, but rather encountering dogmatic defenders of science who are completely ignorant of the philosophy of science. These people have been brought up on a panoply of traditional myths about science, some of which I've alluded to above, for example, there is such a thing as The Scientific Method, and that scientific theories are falsifiable, indeed it is precisely this property of falsifiability which distinguishes them from the claims of pseudoscience, metaphysics, religion, or what have you. I've also presented a case recently that the theory of natural selection is empirically empty, thus predictively impotent and explanatorily vacuous.


The arguments I've presented may of course be flawed. I'm perfectly amenable to the possibility. A non-dogmatic skeptic -- and there are one or two of them around too (Thank God!) -- carefully examines the arguments and evidence, makes a critical appraisal, and reaches the conclusion that he or she deems appropriate. Whether we end up in agreement or not - bravo!

By contrast, rational argumentation and evidence (e.g. evidence from the history of science) have no effect whatsoever on the dogmatic skeptic. It might be dismissed as "sophistry"; we might hear "That's not evidence!". Far more likely is that the dogmatic skeptic simply does not understand the arguments, and this is quickly followed by allegations of trolling and suchlike.

The dogmatic skeptic simply follows the herd. The right kind of people have told him that scientific theories are falsifiable (for example) therefore scientific theories must be falsifiable. It is literally inconceivable to him that he could have been fed a load of crap about science from the right people. Of course, if the "right people" are what I've cynically come to call the "Ministry of Scientific Propaganda" (Dawkins, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, et al) -- each of them as clueless about the philosophy of science as they are hostile to it -- then there is no safer bet than that they have been fed an enormous amount of misinformation, things that have long been recognized in other "metascientific" disciplines (e.g. philosophy, history, and sociology of science) as being untrue.

The dogmatic skeptic dismisses even the most rigorous arguments on a priori grounds. It just cannot be true. It's unthinkable.

You may have noticed I often quote the greatest scientists in my posts. The reason for this is simple: A person like myself can present rational arguments and evidence galore till the cows come home and it makes not a jot of difference to the dogmatic skeptic. Quote Einstein, on the other hand, or link a Scientific American article, as I did above -- saying exactly the same thing I'm saying -- and the herd may stop munching for a bit and pay attention.


By the way, Rupert Sheldrake is magnificent, isn't he? A more intelligent and a more scientific man you're unlikely to encounter. Might he be wrong? Of course he might. But the only way you'll find out is by looking through that telescope.

Have you read his book about dogs seeming to know when their masters are coming home? Amazon link below:

Amazon.com

 

[axocanth]

Reading that, I wonder what work the words "solid" and "scientific" are doing there. Are they just honorifics that serve to make some evidence seem cooler than other evidence? Or is it something more substantial?

To which James responds . . .

The word 'scientific' is there to distinguish evidence collected using scientific methods from other possible kinds of alleged evidence. For instance, the scientific consensus that there was a big bang does not rest on any 'evidence' from supposed eyewitnesses or on mere anecdotal or mythical stories handed down from past generations.

The word 'solid', as a qualifier to 'scientific evidence' means that the totality of the evidence is generally considered by experts in the relevant fields to be of very high quality. The implication is that the alleged evidence has been subjected to a range of scientific checks and balances, that are designed to exclude low quality (or 'insubstantial') evidence while retaining high quality or 'solid' evidence.

Yazata is absolutely right: it's all honorifics and the usual vacuous "We have lots of [solid, sound, high quality, sexy] evidence. You don't have any, not even ugly Rosa Klebb evidence.".

Now don't get me wrong, perhaps it's true that the good guys have mountains of evidence for X and that the bad guys have not even a molehill of evidence for Y, but thus far all we have to support this is bald assertion.

In order to provide some justification for these bald assertions, the baldies will have to provide us with a set of criteria that we can all agree on, and such that these matters can be appraised in an objective manner.

The alternative is to simply assert ex cathedra, as it were, that you have shitloads of evidence without any justification -- precisely what is being done now -- in which case the bad guys are equally entitled to do the same thing.



So, if you wish to transcend these vacuous honorifics and give us a substantive account of evidence, the following questions will need to be addressed:

* What, if anything, distinguishes scientific evidence from nonscientific evidence?

* Assuming there even is such a distinction, does scientific evidence confer a higher epistemological warrant than nonscientific evidence? For example, does the scientific evidence for the Big Bang give us more reason to believe that the Big Bang theory is true than my assertion that Tony was in the pub last night supported by the nonscientific evidence that me and my friends saw him there?

* What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to qualify as scientific evidence, or simply evidence?

* Put another way, what is the nature of the relationship that holds between a certain claim C and evidence E which supports that claim? For example, we're told that there is good evidence for the Big Bang theory. Supposing this is true, does this evidence also constitute evidence to support the theory of evolution, or the Big Foot theory? If not, why not? In virtue of what fact or facts does a given E support one claim and not another?


Until these questions are addressed, Yazata has every right to dismiss his interlocutors' evidentiary claims as mere posturing.

 

[axocanth]

Just to give one example for clarity. Suppose complex organs such as the eye are taken to be good evidence for the theory of evolution, or the theory of natural selection. The "bad guys" of course (e.g. Creationists) will claim that the very same observations or the very same things constitute good evidence for their theory.

If these things are dismissed as "anecdotal" or "eyewitness" evidence for one theory, then exactly the same applies to the other theory. The good guys don't have a monopoly on eyes and wings!

In virtue of what fact or facts, then, do these organs constitute evidence for one theory and not the other?

 

[James R]

I've only scanned this thread very briefly, so forgive me if I've missed anything significant. The immediate impression I come away with, though -- already a tedious pattern on this site -- is the defenders of science railing against what they see as cranks and morons (e.g. Magical and Yazata) who just don't understand what science is all about, giving them a good telling off -- "You understand nothing about science!! Now let me tell you what science really is!"

This is what happens when you only scan briefly, instead of reading through properly and evaluating both sides of the argument. You can end up jumping to hasty and poorly-informed conclusions that are heavily coloured by the biases you bring with you.

The problem with Magical Realist is certainly not that he doesn't understand what science is about. The problem is that he is dishonest. Yazata isn't really in the same league when it comes to the level of blatant dishonesty that MR puts on show, but Yazata hasn't yet found the integrity to retract one specific lie he has knowingly told many times here. I still hold out some hope that Yazata will come around.

Scientists may say that their theories are falsifiable, perhaps some of them even believe it sincerely. E.g. "If X is observed then Theory Y has been shown to be false." The observation of X does not show that Theory Y is false, and there is not a single example in the entire history of science of the whole scientific community declaring a major theory to be false due to a theory-prediction mismatch.

axocanth over-reaches here. Not a single example in the entire history of science, he tells as, as if anybody could know such a thing. Rhetorical emphasis is all well and good, as far as it goes. But you start to look silly when you make blanket claims that you can't possibly begin to support.

What typically happens in such circumstances is that, rather than declaring a falsification (which has not occurred in any case), scientists will try to find some way to reconcile awkward evidence with a cherished theory, indeed it's unlikely to be regarded as awkward evidence at all.

It is very rare in science - almost unheard of - that data is simply rejected outright. It is even rarer for data to be rejected after many independent observers have obtained the same results.

There's no problem with trying to find ways to reconcile awkward evidence with existing theories. The first step is often to try to identify problems in the data, rather than in the theories, because observations and experiments are often difficult, especially in modern times.

If a theory is modified so that it can account for awkward data, the question then arises as to whether it's still the same theory. We could discuss Theseus's ship and all that, endlessly.

If one takes the view that a modified theory is a new theory, then it follows that the awkward data falsified the old theory. If, on the other hand, one takes the view that modifications do not mean that a theory is fundamentally "new", up to a point, then it becomes a question of where you want to draw your line.

2. Dogma - In a nutshell what we're told is: "There is none in science. It's the very antithesis of what science is all about."

(cf. "Science operates on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong. That's the opposite of dogma." - post #107)

In another nutshell we're also told there is no crime in the Soviet Union, no poverty in North Korea, and no homosexuality in Iran.

This is either argument by ridicule or argument from incredulity. Both are argumentative fallacies.

I'm happy to wait and see whether axocanth has a real response that isn't a fallacy.

 

[James R]

Without some knowledge of the philosophy of science, it is simply not possible to speak about science as a whole (what is it, what its methods are, etc., etc.) without sounding -- at least to those who do have this knowledge -- woefully naive, without sounding childlike, and without saying an awful lot of things that are blatantly untrue.

Why anyone would think otherwise boggles the mind. What do you expect: a bricklayer with no relevant background to lecture competently on subatomic physics?

Wise words.

By the same token, without some knowledge of science, it is simply not possible to speak about science as a whole (what its methods are etc etc.) without sounding -- at least to those who do have this knowledge -- woefully naive, without sounding childlike, and without saying an awful lot of things that are blatantly untrue.

Why anyone would think otherwise boggles the mind. What do you expect: a bricklayer with no relevant background to lecture competently on subatomic physics?

 

[James R]

The reason scientific theories cannot be falsified is precisely because they are not contradicted by any observational evidence.

Clearly, if Theory A predicts observation X, and we instead observe not-X, then the observation is prima facie in contradiction to the theory.

Call it an apparent contradiction if you like.

What axocanth seems to be saying here is that we need to double check whether there's really a contradiction, whenever we collect some new evidence. I agree.

If a theory really was contradicted by observational data then it follows by simple logic that either the theory or the data is false. If we accept the truth of the observational data then we can logically infer that the theory is false. It has been falsified.

More accurately, the theory has been falsified to the extent that its various elements are necessary to the theory and yet conflict with the data.

An apparent contradiction is another matter entirely. An apparent contradiction can always be explained away.

In practice, it is not always possible to "explain away" awkward data by making a simple alteration to a theory. Sometimes the only practical solution is to fundamentally rework the theory from the ground up.

Again, we could talk all day about Theseus and his ship.

 

[James R]

Yazata is absolutely right: it's all honorifics and the usual vacuous "We have lots of [solid, sound, high quality, sexy] evidence. You don't have any, not even ugly Rosa Klebb evidence.".

From one's perspective on one's High Horse of Philosophy, I understand how one could make this mistake.

At some point, one needs to get off that horse and come down to ground level, where the actual science is done. You'll quickly discover that the quality of all evidence is not equal. You might - God forbid - even learn something about the Scientific Method, which can help you to distinguish good evidence from bad.

Now don't get me wrong, perhaps it's true that the good guys have mountains of evidence for X and that the bad guys have not even a molehill of evidence for Y, but thus far all we have to support this is bald assertion.

This is where we need to get into the specifics of the particular matter of scientific interest. It is not possible to generalise vaguely about "good guys" and "bad guys" until you look at the evidence and the arguments put by both sides.

It's not very different from trying to judge which of two philosophical arguments is better. But one often needs some background experience and knowledge of the specifics.

In order to provide some justification for these bald assertions, the baldies will have to provide us with a set of criteria that we can all agree on, and such that these matters can be appraised in an objective manner.

Luckily, the baldies usually provide very good criteria.

So, if you wish to transcend these vacuous honorifics and give us a substantive account of evidence, the following questions will need to be addressed:

* What, if anything, distinguishes scientific evidence from nonscientific evidence?

Something about the Scientific Method goes here. But axocanth doesn't believe in it.

* Assuming there even is such a distinction, does scientific evidence confer a higher epistemological warrant than nonscientific evidence?

It varies, depending on the specifics. Certainly, it can.

* What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to qualify as scientific evidence, or simply evidence?

This is an inquiry that, I fear, takes us quite a long way outside the subject matter of this thread. A discussion for a different thread, perhaps.

* Put another way, what is the nature of the relationship that holds between a certain claim C and evidence E which supports that claim? For example, we're told that there is good evidence for the Big Bang theory. Supposing this is true, does this evidence also constitute evidence to support the theory of evolution, or the Big Foot theory? If not, why not? In virtue of what fact or facts does a given E support one claim and not another?

Ditto.

Until these questions are addressed, Yazata has every right to dismiss his interlocutors' evidentiary claims as mere posturing.

No. That would be silly. Until one investigates, one should always keep an open mind. Dismissing claims outright simply due to one's own preferences or biases is not a rational approach to evaluating claims.

 

[James R]

Just to give one example for clarity. Suppose complex organs such as the eye are taken to be good evidence for the theory of evolution, or the theory of natural selection. The "bad guys" of course (e.g. Creationists) will claim that the very same observations or the very same things constitute good evidence for their theory.

If these things are dismissed as "anecdotal" or "eyewitness" evidence for one theory, then exactly the same applies to the other theory. The good guys don't have a monopoly on eyes and wings!

The eyes and wings, in and of themselves don't constitute evidence for either "theory".

 

[axocanth]

2. Dogma - In a nutshell what we're told is: "There is none in science. It's the very antithesis of what science is all about."

(cf. "Science operates on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong. That's the opposite of dogma." - post #107)

In another nutshell we're also told there is no crime in the Soviet Union, no poverty in North Korea, and no homosexuality in Iran.

Who are you trying to kid !!??

Never mind, I'll let the scientists speak for themselves . . .

After typing the above (post 198), I then proceed to give a list of scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, expressing the view that there is dogma in science; it is by no means a dogma-free enterprise. And who -- over ten years old anyway -- ever thought otherwise!

In the following video, massively popular and influential Youtube science educator, Professor Dave, speaking for the Ministry of Scientistic Propaganda, and echoing the general opinion of this thread (except for a couple of sane members ruining the party), reassures his listeners, urging them not to heed what anti-science spawns of Satan (e.g. Albert Einstein) are suggesting. His considered response to a critic:

"Science isn't Dogma, You're Just Stupid"

The good professor, also echoing the general sentiment in this thread, goes on to explain that anyone who thinks there is dogma in science is not only stupid, but a liar. This seems to be the standard official response to any critique of science nowadays.

Make no mistake about it, the stakes are high, as Prof Dave makes clear right at the beginning of his presentation:

0:00:35: "I wanted to respond because it's such an immaculate example of the precise brand of anti-science rhetoric that is rampant in society today. It's a manipulative epistemological poison that has the potential to kill off the human race. And it's alarming how popular this kind of narrative has become, even among moderately ejukated people."

There you have it, folks. The forces of evil are among us, false prophets abound, Armageddon will soon be upon us, but Professor Dave -- who I refer to myself as Messiah Dave -- is here to save the world . . . just so long as you repent fast, deny that there is any crime in the Soviet Union, subscribe to his channel, and purchase something from his new range of T-shirts and coffee mugs. I personally selected his "Professor Dave is the Light and the Truth" electric dildo. Um, it's a gift.


By the way, the video he is responding to ("How Science Became Unscientific") is actually one of the more intelligent offerings on Youtube, the presenter obviously well read in the philosophy of science. The first 20 mins or so, however, are about the media industry of which I know nothing, thus cannot comment. The interesting stuff -- at least for anyone sincerely wishing to understand science better -- comes afterwards.

Those who prefer intellectual pablum, propaganda, and a crime-free Russia, on the other hand, know what to do.

 

[axocanth]

I've only scanned this thread very briefly, so forgive me if I've missed anything significant. The immediate impression I come away with, though -- already a tedious pattern on this site -- is the defenders of science railing against what they see as cranks and morons (e.g. Magical and Yazata) who just don't understand what science is all about, giving them a good telling off -- "You understand nothing about science!! Now let me tell you what science really is!"

The defenders of science then proceed to propagate and perpetuate fairy tales; -- absolute nonsense -- some idealized version of science, some propaganda, that they've been brainwashed with, bearing little or no resemblance to the real world.

I won't mention any names (but just search the thread, say, for the words "dogma" and "unfalsifiable" to locate suspects). I will tell you the reason why these fairy tales are being perpetuated, though: an appalling and inexcusable -- for any person supposedly educating others on science -- ignorance of the philosophy and history of science.

We could talk all night, but for now I'll just focus on two issues:

The first of these fairy tales that I allude to above -- that science is undogmatic -- is addressed in my previous post. The second -- that good science is falsifiable (while all that pseudoscientific "woo" crap is not) -- is addressed around 40:00 - 43:00 in the video that Messiah Dave attacks in the post above. For a fuller account watch 25:00 - 45:00.

It's not even necessary to understand the theoretical minutiae of why Popperian falsification does not, indeed cannot, work. Neither do you have to endorse Thomas Kuhn's alternative views. All you have to do is look at the history of science . . .

. . . or not. You can also choose to cling to your "invisible friends" instead.

 

[axocanth]

2. Dogma - In a nutshell what we're told is: "There is none in science. It's the very antithesis of what science is all about."

(cf. "Science operates on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong. That's the opposite of dogma." - post #107)

Readers may wish to compare what is stated above (post #107) with how Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most prominent and influential scientist alive today, opens his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" . . .

(see "The Stage Theory of Theories", page 23, post #460).


"Evolution is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane informed intelligent doubt. Beyond doubt evolution is a fact."


It doesn't sound at all to me like Prof Dawkins is "operating on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong". Indeed, he's quite explicit; you'd have to be insane to doubt evolution. I'd further suggest that Prof Dawkins is hardly unique in this regard, it's not at all uncommon to hear scientists speak as he does, and not just about evolution.

One could respond in a number of ways, I suppose, e.g.


"Dawkins is quite right. You would have to be insane to doubt evolution."

. . . in which case it is obviously not true that science operates on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong. Only insane people think evolution might be wrong.


Another response might be:

"Dawkins fails to represent the ideal of science, which is to operate on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong."

. . . to which I respond: No doubt we'd all like to live in a crime-free society too. It's an ideal, perhaps somewhat quixotic, that we might strive for. For now, however, we do not live in Utopia. Are we discussing real world science here, or some cloud cuckoo land where fairy tales come true?

 

[axocanth]

Compare:

dogma​

3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:

the difficulty of resisting political dogma.

(dictionary.com)

and

"Evolution is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane informed intelligent doubt. Beyond doubt evolution is a fact."

(Richard Dawkins)

Any questions?

 

[Pinball1970]

I know I have posted this before but it is worth posting again.

"Dogmatic" means sticking to your guns no matter what.

If one is skeptical it does not mean we just reject every claim out of hand, it means we will wait until evidence and a reasoned argument is provided.
Perhaps a scientific paper?
Is the paper published in a reputable journal?
We check this stuff. Just dotting the eyes and crossing the Ts.
Is there just one author? H index? Literature search? Review of the paper? Dot dot dot, cross.

and that is for phenomena that has some research behind it!

 

[axocanth]

I know I have posted this before but it is worth posting again.

"Dogmatic" means sticking to your guns no matter what.

You mean like sticking to your guns in insisting that science is dogma-free when you have the testimony of Nobel Prize-winning scientists saying that it is not?

 

[James R]

"Evolution is a fact, beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane informed intelligent doubt. Beyond doubt evolution is a fact."

It doesn't sound at all to me like Prof Dawkins is "operating on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong". Indeed, he's quite explicit; you'd have to be insane to doubt evolution. I'd further suggest that Prof Dawkins is hardly unique in this regard, it's not at all uncommon to hear scientists speak as he does, and not just about evolution.

The context of Dawkins' statement could be important here. Is he talking about the facts of evolution - i.e. the observational evidence for it - or is he talking about the theory of evolution - i.e. the explanation(s) for why we observe what we observe?

The observations are the observations, beyond reasonable doubt etc. It is important to bear in mind that Dawkins often finds himself arguing in opposition to Creationists and the like, who don't always even agree about the existence or legitimacy of the various observations.

As for the theory (or theories) of evolution, things could very well depend on the level at which you're probing confidence in the theory. If we're talking broad brushstrokes - large scale patterns and trends, etc. - then scientists tend to be very confident that the theory of evolution is a good explanation for what we observe. On the other hand, there are lots of arguments among the professionals about the details of the theory and its specific application to analysing particular data.

 

[Pinball1970]

The context of Dawkins' statement could be important here. Is he talking about the facts of evolution - i.e. the observational evidence for it - or is he talking about the theory of evolution - i.e. the explanation(s) for why we observe what we observe?

Exactly, he says similar things but the reader, viewer has to understand what he is talking about.

The best way he described it to make it understandable is that a scientific theory is not proven in the same way a mathematical theorem is proven.
However in this way we cannot "prove" we live on an oblate spheroid either but we do.

Of course members who are more interested in quote mining for gotcha points so will not be interested in that.

 

[axocanth]

Of course members who are more interested in quote mining for gotcha points so will not be interested in that.

You just can't win, eh?

Years ago it became clear to me that any time I made an assertion that was demonstrably true, but unpalatable to certain people, I would be told "You're fulla shit" or perhaps "Put up or shut up." And who really wants to spend hours or days in the library hunting down evidence that, in all likelihood, will simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand anyway?

Because of this I began, also some years ago, during my daily reading to keep a record of any quotes that I thought might come in handy in the future, meticulously noting page numbers and so on, so that they could be easily checked by any skeptic. Yes, I know, call it pathetic if you will, but it keeps me off the streets.

These days, when I quote from primary sources, what I often hear instead of "Put up or shut up" is "You're quote mining!".



Now, the phrase "quote mining" to me suggests a certain dishonesty, the displaying of quotes which, even if authentic, do not properly represent a person's overall position. We all say things from time to time which might be somewhat inconsistent with our regular view on things. If this is the allegation then I would like members making the allegation to provide their own evidence from primary sources that I am indeed distorting a person's regular position.

In the hope of furthering stimulating discussion in these forums, and in the hope that we can all learn together, and learn from one another, in various threads I have gone to quite some length, and spent quite some time, to quote from primary sources. Perhaps my frustration might be understandable, then, if this effort is rewarded with a glib "He's quote mining!".

The most recent allegation of quote mining pertains to Richard Dawkins. I do not feel my quotes are misrepresentative of his views on evolution, indeed I cannot think of anyone who argues for its undeniable certainty more vociferously than himself. Can you? If you feel his standard position is more "Yeah, it might be true or it might not. It's all tentative like everything else in science" please share the evidence.


Note finally -- as I'm often misunderstood on these things -- I'm not arguing that scientists conjuring up dark matter is wrong, or that Dawkins' expressing implacable dogmatic certainty on evolution is wrong. What I am suggesting is that to assert that science is dogma free or that "Science operates on the assumption that anything we think we know could turn out to be wrong" is wildly inconsistent with high profile scientists saying things like . . .

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”​

― Richard Dawkins



In other words, on pain of inconsistency, you have to take a stance: Science, or individual scientists, can be dogmatic, or else find some way to explain away statements such as the one above, Albert Einstein, and other Nobel Prize-winners quoted earlier. (e.g. "It's looks like dogma but it's not really"). Rather you than me! Why not just face it? Science can be pretty dogmatic. It's not the end of the world.

Frankly, in my opinion, to argue that science is dogma-free is patently absurd, it just makes a person look silly, propagandistic even. Even the finest scientists themselves comment on dogma in science. And if you believe Thomas Kuhn and others, with their historical research as evidence, science is actually far more dogmatic than is commonly thought -- and it's not a bad thing! If scientists tossed away their best theories at the first whiff of disconfirming evidence -- à la Karl Popper -- they would have no theories left!

 

[Pinball1970]

You just can't win, eh?

I posted that first then saw an olive branch so I offered my own. Fair enough?

 

[axocanth]

S'all cool, dude.

 

[Pinball1970]

Now, the phrase "quote mining" to me suggests a certain dishonesty, the displaying of quotes which, even if authentic, do not properly represent a person's overall position.

You have to admit the Mayr quote did not tell the whole picture (traits being genes)
It would have also been better to cite Mary w.r.t. The Blind Watchmaker, he thought it was great.
He obviously was not as impressed with "The Selfish Gene."