If people are interested in this sort of thing, it also helps to read some of the works of Imre Lakatos.
In my words, not his, he advocates that real scientific progress happens by a sort of natural selection of theories. The basic idea is that new grad students pick whatever theories are most likely to easily let them publish science papers; so that basically certain theories make their grad students more likely to write papers with them inside. Those theories thereby "reproduce" and/or "die".
So, for example, we had an article here the other day which lamented why quantum mechanics was still Copenhagen-y rather than being dominated by pilot waves. The basic answer to this, following Lakatos, is that doing stuff with naive quantum mechanics and probabilistic thinking is easier for grad students to work with, as opposed to extending the pilot wave theory to encompass your new direction and then examining it for statistics.
Yes, the similarity between science and evolution is one of the major themes of STS, emphasized by both Kuhn and Lakatos.
The reason this makes a lot of people uncomfortable is that it messes with our notion of scientific progress. This notion is rooted in 19th century romanticism, and predicts inevitable progress toward totality. It sees science as a matter of manifest destiny, guided by the truth and approximating it ever more closely.
Evolution, however, does not have any goals. It might or might not tend to produce complex and intelligent organisms, but it sure ain't guided by any overarching ideal or telos apart from the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution wanders aimlessly, making do with whatever the universe randomly throws at it. This is not the kind of model that most people want to associate with science.
Meanwhile, transhumanists who rally around the idea of the technological singularity represent the last holdout of the old, romantic ideal. They can maintain a semblance of consistency because they also reject the relevance of evolutionary biology to the future of humanity: the age of evolution is over, and AI will take over from here. I'm not quite sure what to make of this idea, but it will be really interesting to watch how their predictions unfold (or not).
Comments
If people are interested in this sort of thing, it also helps to read some of the works of Imre Lakatos.
In my words, not his, he advocates that real scientific progress happens by a sort of natural selection of theories. The basic idea is that new grad students pick whatever theories are most likely to easily let them publish science papers; so that basically certain theories make their grad students more likely to write papers with them inside. Those theories thereby "reproduce" and/or "die".
So, for example, we had an article here the other day which lamented why quantum mechanics was still Copenhagen-y rather than being dominated by pilot waves. The basic answer to this, following Lakatos, is that doing stuff with naive quantum mechanics and probabilistic thinking is easier for grad students to work with, as opposed to extending the pilot wave theory to encompass your new direction and then examining it for statistics.
Yes, the similarity between science and evolution is one of the major themes of STS, emphasized by both Kuhn and Lakatos.
The reason this makes a lot of people uncomfortable is that it messes with our notion of scientific progress. This notion is rooted in 19th century romanticism, and predicts inevitable progress toward totality. It sees science as a matter of manifest destiny, guided by the truth and approximating it ever more closely.
Evolution, however, does not have any goals. It might or might not tend to produce complex and intelligent organisms, but it sure ain't guided by any overarching ideal or telos apart from the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution wanders aimlessly, making do with whatever the universe randomly throws at it. This is not the kind of model that most people want to associate with science.
Meanwhile, transhumanists who rally around the idea of the technological singularity represent the last holdout of the old, romantic ideal. They can maintain a semblance of consistency because they also reject the relevance of evolutionary biology to the future of humanity: the age of evolution is over, and AI will take over from here. I'm not quite sure what to make of this idea, but it will be really interesting to watch how their predictions unfold (or not).