I am a bit confused as to why you believe the use of the subject matter in the top box in support of evolution is circular reasoning. Granted, some uses of parts of each subject may be circular depending on how it is used.
Let's look at Variation. Darwin in The Origin of Species, uses the fact that within a species, variation occurs and can be used to breed for certain traits (domestic animals) or is forced in a certain direction (natural selection) in populations of animals. Variation within populations of the same species was used by Darwin in support of his theory. Are you saying that since Darwin used variation that no one else can use it? That doesn't really make sense to me since it was an observation by Darwin not a conclusion.
Interesting choice. Requests for falsifiable hypotheses generally get "variation happens" (more wordy) as a response these days. It's also tricky, because it's easy to get into genetics on this. Genetics is going to be a can of worms.
But if you can think of something non-circular involving variation sans genetics, I'll be glad to re-evaluate.
I forgot to include
Darwin's Books above. I get the feeling I'm going to be reading quite a bit.
It is expected that any hypothesis conform to reality as it is already known. Testing by use of observations he possessed is meaningless, because he already knew the outcome. The most that can be made from that category is that he didn't screw up and overlook something.
I don't see it as circular, but I am willing to be persuaded to the contrary.
You've got me thinking too. I'm trying not to just focus on Darwin, but science in general. Usually observations used in support come after the hypothesis exists, at least in the examples with which I'm familiar. Have you some other examples of this pattern: offer hypothesis right along with support? I'd prefer something where the hypothesis is clear.
I really don't think one can get away with that. I think the hypothesis needs to be in place first, then supporting observations.
One can say base on A B C I think D. Then test for D. Altering the wording, one could say based on A I think D, and I offer B and C as supporting evidence. But is the thought process any different? Is the person not thinking exactly the same thing? We can't allow the choice of words to alter the process.
Darwin didn't make this easy. He doesn't give a simple scientific hypothesis speaking to one single issue. He offers an historic hypothesis which encompasses all these things, and addresses more than one scientific issue. Whether he actually says so or not, he's actually offering an explanation for all of the things he's observed. Confirming that they can indeed be observed doesn't contribute much.
This is about box assignment if you are saying that the stuff in box 1 can't be used to support evolution without violation of the circular reasoning fallacy.
Right.
I am just as curious/confused by your other choices, but I can deal with them one at a time if it is all right with you.
Probably best.
Now that I think of it, he's predicting variety on another scale. Forgot my evoscope when I typed that up.
