> _Of course_ science, which is just the practice of
> scientists, is loaded chock full with prejudices, that
> is, views held without reflection because they are
> indoctrinated into scientists in college, grad school,
> and professional life, views which are not considered
> open to rational debate because anyone professing the
> contrary is simply dismissed as a crank or a nut or an
> ignoramus. These prejudices range from very high level
> metaphysical and epistemological doctrines like: to
> matter scientifically our ideas must be quantifiable
> and have measurably observable results...
Something Ravi wrote (which I forget) made me think a while about quantifiability and how necessary it is to make testable statements about the world. Evolution doesn't appear to hinge on it, and I wonder if Darwin ever found it necessary, aside from considering the passage of time. I don't recall much from Gould's popular writings that depend on it. Certainly you can build quantifiable statements on it, and devise quantifiable tests of it, but it doesn't appear central to the argument.
You can even say something about physics that is testable, verified, profound and still something of a mystery, and unquantified: "Massive objects move towards each other in the absence of barriers." You need some notion of "more/less than", but that strikes me too primitive to avoid in any kind of picture of the world, no matter how you get there. Even protozoa deal with gradients. So I'm curious about what's been said about that.
-- Andy