Was Charles Darwin a Racist ?

[gambit]

This cartoon is only funny to people who don't actually understand the scientific method.

The frame on the right is also part of the scientific method. It is perfectly valid in science to propose a theory (conclusion) and then look for corroborating evidence. In fact, science demands that any good theory make predictions which can be used to verify or refute it.

That is NOT true. Upon seeing a pattern or evidences, we can have a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a proposed notion of what that pattern or array of evidences MAY mean. It is illegal to look for corroborating evidences, by illegal I mean illogical or intellectually dishonest, not from any legislative framework. A hypothesis should be discarded if there are enough evidences that cast doubt upon said hypothesis. A theory is where we have an explanation that explain the evidences in as much evidences that we can amass. In other words, theory come after facts while hypothesis can precede facts. Theory explains facts. Anything less or anything else and we have intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Developereo]

That is NOT true. Upon seeing a pattern or evidences, we can have a hypothesis, which is nothing more than a proposed notion of what that pattern or array of evidences MAY mean. It is illegal to look for corroborating evidences, by illegal I mean illogical or intellectually dishonest, not from any legislative framework. A hypothesis should be discarded if there are enough evidences that cast doubt upon said hypothesis. A theory is where we have an explanation that explain the evidences in as much evidences that we can amass. In other words, theory come after facts while hypothesis can precede facts. Theory explains facts. Anything less or anything else and we have intellectual dishonesty.

You are being pedantic with words. Outside of formal scientific treatises, the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are used interchangeably in common dialog, which is what we are having here.

In both cases, you start out with some facts -- very few theories or hypotheses are conceived out of thin air -- and then propose experiments or observations to corroborate or, better still, refute your proposition. In other words, you look for supporting evidence. The difference is that, in the scientific method, you have to be prepared to handle observations that do not match predictions and either abandon or amend your theory (or hypothesis).

 

[gambit]

You are being pedantic with words. Outside of formal scientific treatises, the words 'theory' and 'hypothesis' are used interchangeably in common dialog, which is what we are having here.

That does not make it acceptable. In this case, I would rather be pedantic than wrong. YOU are wrong.

In both cases, you start out with some facts -- very few theories or hypotheses are conceived out of thin air -- and then propose experiments or observations to corroborate or, better still, refute your proposition. In other words, you look for supporting evidence. The difference is that, in the scientific method, you have to be prepared to handle observations that do not match predictions and either abandon or amend your theory (or hypothesis).

This means YOU are wrong about the cartoon. The panel on the right is nothing like the real 'scientific method'.

 

[desioptimist]

Developereo it is not pedantic but very important to explain the difference between theory and hypothesis(when we are talking about science). People who don't know this keep telling the same thing : "Oh theory of evolution is only a theory".

 

[Developereo]

After wading through 100+ irrelevant posts about religion, Mohammad, Hitler, homosexuality and God knows what else, there were maybe a dozen posts that actually addressed the original question.

As I understand it, the original post asked two questions:
1- Did Darwin believe that certain races are biologically inferior to others?
2- Is evolution proven?

The first question is easily answered. If the quoted text is accurate, then Darwin clearly believed that certain races had evolved further than others. But, so what? His personal beliefs are irrelevant and do not invalidate his science.

I will break the second question into two parts:
1a- Is the process of evolution proven?
1b- Is the mechanism of evolution proven?

In response, I would say the fossil evidence provides a lot of evidence in support of 1a. We even have experiments and observations supporting 1a. But there are open questions about 1b. Specifically, the OP mentioned the probabilistic challenge to evolution. I assume he was referring to the work of John Sanford and other scientists who argue that, given that the fundamental mechanism of evolution is chance mutation and, in a binary code made up of hundreds of billions of digits, the chances for a beneficial mutation are extremely small, almost all chance mutations will have a negative effect.

Personally, I believe in evolution, but I agree that this challenge hasn't been sufficiently explained by neo-Darwinists.

 

[Bang Galore]

^^^^^^^^^

No one who argues that "evolution is just a theory' ever says that "Copernicus theory of Heliocentrism" is just a theory. Shouldn't push my luck though. They might still make that argument

 

[Developereo]

That does not make it acceptable. In this case, I would rather be pedantic than wrong. YOU are wrong.
This means YOU are wrong about the cartoon. The panel on the right is nothing like the real 'scientific method'.

You are just throwing a hissy fit by being pedantic. In this context, theory and hypothesis are one and the same.

The second panel is a true, albeit incomplete, reflection of the scientific method.

Developereo it is not pedantic but very important to explain the difference between theory and hypothesis(when we are talking about science). People who don't know this keep telling the same thing : "Oh theory of evolution is only a theory".

Everything in science is either an unprovable base axiom, or a theory. Science doesn't deal with absolute facts; that's the domain of religion. The only guarantee science gives is "this is our best explanation of the real world out there".

Yes, that means that the Earth being flat may be proved wrong tomorrow if overwhelming evidence comes about. It is extremely unlikely, but science would have to deal with new observations and experimental results as they arise.

 

[Bang Galore]

Yes, that means that the Earth being flat may be proved wrong tomorrow if overwhelming evidence comes about. It is extremely unlikely, but science would have to deal with facts as they arise.

Err... thought that was already proved wrong.

 

[Developereo]

Err... thought that was already proved wrong.

Well, you know what I mean...

 

[desioptimist]

You are just throwing a hissy fit by being pedantic. In this context, theory and hypothesis are one and the same.

The second panel is a true, albeit incomplete, reflection of the scientific method.



Everything in science is either an unprovable base axiom, or a theory. Science doesn't deal with absolute facts; that's the domain of religion. The only guarantee science gives is "this is our best explanation of the real world out there".

Yes, that means that the Earth being flat may be proved wrong tomorrow if overwhelming evidence comes about. It is extremely unlikely, but science would have to deal with new observations and experimental results as they arise.

What do you mean absolute facts? Facts are dime a dozen, theories are very rare, that is why it is celebrated in science.
Facts are direct observations, they are important, but of not much use really.

 

[Developereo]

What do you mean absolute facts? Facts are dime a dozen, theories are very rare, that is why it is celebrated in science.
Facts are direct observations, they are important, but of not much use really.

Well, there are two types of statements that are relevant here.

I threw an apple and it fell to the floor.

That's an observation, the result of an experiment. It is a 'fact' that most anyone can try to verify by following your instructions.

The apple falls because it follows a specific trajectory defined by the distortion in the space-time continuum due to the presence of an energy-dense vortex. The details of the distortion are given by such-and-such formula...

That's a theory to explain the first 'fact', the observation. Some people might also call it 'fact'. Most wouldn't.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, evolution is the first and only theory that can explain the living world in scientific terms.

Any alternate theory (Intelligent design, creation by an all powerful external agency) necessarily relies on something that is beyond the power of human beings to grasp. One might as well leave out any pursuit to find out.

Given what the proponents of the alternate theories have, I would chose to lean on the side of evolutionary theory. Occam's razor works for me, the less the variables, the better it is.

 

[desioptimist]

Well, there are two types of statements that are relevant here.

I threw an apple and it fell to the floor.

That's an observation, the result of an experiment. It is a 'fact' that most anyone can try to verify by following your instructions.

The apple falls because it follows a specific trajectory defined by the distortion in the space-time continuum due to the presence of an energy-dense vortex. The details of the distortion are given by such-and-such formula...

That's a theory to explain the first 'fact', the observation. Some people might also call it 'fact'. Most wouldn't.

Can you give another example of a fact? other than you mentioned above.
Also please mention how you know that it is a fact.

 

[Developereo]

Can you give another example of a fact? other than you mentioned above.
Also please mention how you know that it is a fact.

Leaving aside philosophical traps about 'are we all plugged into the Matrix', and assuming that sensory input reflects the 'real' world, here's one.

An RNA molecule traverses a DNA strand and, as it 'walks' along, it synthesizes protein molecules based on the specific sequence of nucleotides on the DNA.

That much is observed. Any laboratory on the planet can follow detailed instructions and observe the same behavior repeated every time. We are trying to work out how exactly the RNA molecule 'reads' the nucleotides and builds up the protein.

 

[desioptimist]

Leaving aside philosophical traps about 'are we all plugged into the Matrix', and assuming that sensory input reflects the 'real' world, here's one.

An RNA molecule traverses a DNA strand and, as it 'walks' along, it synthesizes protein molecules based on the specific sequence of nucleotides on the DNA.

That much is observed. Any laboratory on the planet can follow detailed instructions and observe the same behavior repeated every time. We are trying to work out how exactly the RNA molecule 'reads' the nucleotides and builds up the protein.

I guess you are telling the same thing, any direct observation is a fact. We are of course assuming that observer is neutral and the experiment is repeatable without any error creeping in. Facts can change if we get more accurate way to observe, but mostly they will remain same.