Paradigm shifts (split from Are there any practical uses for Darwin's tree in applied biology)

[Reg Prescott]

16 minutes ago, Arete said:

Of course.  

 

If evolution were disproven tomorrow it would be the most exciting day ever to be an evolutionary biologist. But you'd have to come up with something pretty amazing to better explain the reams of data produced every day which boringly conforms to the predictions of contemporary evolutionary theory. 

 

With all due respect to your professional expertise, sir, this comment is both philosophically naive and historically unprecedented.

There are no cases at all, that I'm aware of, where all involved in a major theoretical paradigm gasp in horror at some new discovery or observation, concede falsification, and en masse abandon the paradigm, leaving themselves with no theoretical framework.

Do you know of any?

 

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is no mechanical distinction between those two. It is just the degree of divergence. The foundation is still genetic in nature.

I'd provide sources to those who claim otherwise. Francis has declared it off topic, though.

We can do it somewhere else if you like.

I'm not defending their views per se, but more suggesting that what you're saying can be, and has been, challenged.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Arete]

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

With all due respect to your professional expertise, sir, this comment is both philosophically naive and historically unprecedented.

There are no cases at all, that I'm aware of, where all involved in a major theoretical paradigm gasp in horror at some new discovery or observation, concede falsification, and en masse abandon the paradigm, leaving themselves with no theoretical framework.

Do you know of any?

Plate tectonics is probably the quintessential example of a  theory that resulted in a complete paradigm shift. Although, one day is hyperbole - it took 50 years give or take. 

In my field, though less dramatic, it's probably the emergence of methylation and epigenetics are heritable components of traits. 

Edit: You're partially correct - it is relatively standard to proceed using the best current model unless a new, better model is proposed which fits the data more wholly.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Arete

[Reg Prescott]

32 minutes ago, Arete said:

Plate tectonics is probably the quintessential example of a  theory that resulted in a complete paradigm shift. Although, one day is hyperbole - it took 50 years give or take. 

In my field, though less dramatic, it's probably the emergence of methylation and epigenetics are heritable components of traits. 

 

Paradigm shifts are not in dispute. Paradigm shifts are well documented.

But that's not what you said. You said "If evolution were disproven tomorrow..."

Paradigm shifts don't happen that way.

(i) They don't happen that fast (as you have conceded)

(ii) They don't happen at all until an alternative is available, and

(iii) That worrisome "disproven" word

Edited November 2, 2018 by Reg Prescott

[Arete]

7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Paradigm shifts don't happen that way.

I would argue they do, The idea that heating/cooling cycles explained the shape of the continents was disproven when existing and new data fit the new idea of plate tectonics more precisely. 

I would accept (probably after a lot of hat eating) a better explanation of the incomprehensible quantity of data that fits the contemporary theory of evolution - but I wouldn't accept the notion that the data don't fit the theory in the absence of a better model, because they do. 

[Reg Prescott]

11 minutes ago, Arete said:

I would argue they do, The idea that heating/cooling cycles explained the shape of the continents was disproven when existing and new data fit the new idea of plate tectonics more precisely. 

I would accept (probably after a lot of hat eating) a better explanation of the incomprehensible quantity of data that fits the contemporary theory of evolution - but I wouldn't accept the notion that the data don't fit the theory in the absence of a better model, because they do. 

 Hmm, that troublesome "disproven" word again LOL. 

1. Are you familiar with the Duhem-Quine thesis?

2. Max Planck...

Quote

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck 

Now, Planck may be overplaying his hand a little, but I'd argue there's some substance to this. It's not so much that major paradigms are disproven, but that they just kinda... fall from grace.

 

Edit P.S. -- Lol @ "hat-eating" 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Reg Prescott