Second point, it is true that classucal Darwinian explanations are narrative in structure, and in fact, as been midly objected by the creationsists, just so stories, they tie in deeply and intimately to quantification -- evolutionary populoationa biology is a statistical discipline -- and Gould, for one, did not disdain its techniques, Maynard Smith out classical Darwinian explanation in game-theoretical terms. And of course ev biol led directly to genetics and molecular biol to provide underpinning mechanisms, theiries that are qyantitative through and through. Classical Darwininism derives a kot of its support from its integration with these mire austerely quantitative fields.
The quantitatiive bias of modern science is a metaphysical prejudice, not as strict rule. Over the Cavdendish Labs in Cambridge Rutherford has inscribed somethging to the effect of What Is Real Can Be Be Measured, and that si the bias the sciences if if it is nottheir struct and invariable practice. There are lot of of dogmas in scienve generally and the science in particular, The absolndinment of Aristitlean final causation for effecient causation for example.
You can say nonquantitive things about physics that have more or less meaning -- popular science books are full of this. Moreover the deep metphysical presuppoistions of physics are not wholly or perhaps mainly quantitative. That doesn't mean physics isn't a quantitative disciplone.
Anytway, all this is a side comment that doesn't duspute Marx's, the pragmatists', and Kuhn's and Feyerabend's point that science is prejudiced and dogmatic to the more. The issue you raiswe are: what are prejuduces and dogmas, not are there any.
--- Andy F <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/06, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > _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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com