So, I ask you to explain how it is circular reasoning to use variation as evidence supporting evolution and you shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to show how it is not circular reasoning.
variation > hypothesis > variation > true. Automatically. I call that circular. You call it what you want.
OK. Variation is an observation not a conclusion. We see variation within a population of the same species of birds. It is an observation like seeing a house is not painted yellow, green, blue, or red. We would use the fact that a house is not painted those colors in order to provide evidence that it may be painted white or brown. We use variation withing a population to provide evidence that under certain conditions the predominant traits withing the population might change over time.
Testing an hypothesis vs. the observations that inspired it isn't testing.
But this reminds me, [color:"green"] Natural Selection [/color] also belongs in box 1. It was an observation as well as part of the hypothesis.
I'm going to propose [color:"orange"] Analyses of Variation over Time [/color] for box 2. This would include both macroevolutionary claims and statistical techniques. Cool with that?
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.
You are accusing Darwin of making up evolution then going out to cherry pick evidence to support it. Do you have some evidence that shows Darwin saying that, or writing that? Maybe a diary entry or something? Otherwise this is sheer speculation and slander.
Huh? Where did I say he
did it? I'm saying it'd be meaningless no matter who did it. I could do it now and it'd still be meaningless.
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.
You are saying the a hypothesis should be made before any observations are made. How can this happen? {snip}
What do you think is in the first box? And the second?
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.
Offering an explanation for all the things he observed is called making a hypothesis. Those observations support the hypothesis which is why Darwin made the hypothesis. Continuing to observe those things (more closely, now) and seeing that those observations have not contradicted the hypothesis means those things are STILL support for the hypothesis.
This would be true of an historic hypothesis. It is not true in science. Science requires testing and
new observations. Confirming the old ones is nice if it makes one feel good. It's nice for history. But it's worth zero scientifically.
Suppose I base an hypothesis on the blueness of the ink in my pen. Can I prove my hypothesis by having a lab analyze the ink and verify its blueness? Heck no!
The ink in my pen is blue.
The paper is white.
My uncle will be able to read this note.
The ink in my pen is sure 'nuf blue!
=true
But for purposes of history, we can be more confident that my pen has contained blue ink.
Adding carbon to molten iron has been observed to make the steel harder. So I hypothesize that adding things to molten iron will change its characteristics. Further tests that show adding things does change the characteristics are evidence supporting the hypothesis. That is not circular reasoning.
Unless the other things are made of carbon - then it's circular.
But if they're made of something else, SOMETHING YOU HAD NOT ALREADY OBSERVED BEING USED, then the test is valid.
One thing I do enjoy about such simple examples: they demonstrate that even children and animals are capable of conducting valid scientific research. Not usually groundbreaking, but valid.
