On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:42:01 +0100, Nick Dalton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hmm. what I was trying to point out was that ultimately 'science'
>will have to respond to things like the journals which now report on
>papers on intelligent design (http://www.arn.org/).
Dear Sheep,
I won't elaborate too much on Intelligent Design (sorry, I can't see the
relevance to this discussion group), but basically Biology has moved from
being a hypothesis-driven to being a data-driven science. As Wilkins says:
"While the great majority of biologists would agree with the dictum that
'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution', most can
conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to
evolutionary ideas."
A.S. Wilkins, "Evolutionary processes: a special issue", BioEssays, 22:
1051-2, 2000
Perhaps more relevant, though, is the 'social logic' of British science in
the 19th century. I attach a book review (file bulldog.pdf) by Steve Jones,
Professor of Genetics here at UCL. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I
did, particularly the highlighted bits.
Prof. Jones is in the Galton Laboratory, just around the corner, and I am
sure he will be thrilled by your fascinating views on science.
Best Regards,
Rui
|