Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Linnaeus, etc.
Message-ID: <552@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 13:21:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.552
Posted: Tue May 28 13:21:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 06:40:56 EDT
References: <1136@uwmacc.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 118
Summary: 

In article <1136@uwmacc.UUCP> (Paul DuBois) writes:
> >>> [Mike Huybensz]
> >>> I think a pretty fair argument can be made that science was done in spite
> >>> of that obstructing framework.  Great advances were almost always made by
> >>> rejecting applicable parts of the framework.  Nor were the Galileos and
> >>> Darwins the only scientists who rejected the religious framework.
>
> You said above that advances were made by *rejecting* parts of the
> framework.  What parts of his framework did Newton *reject* that
> allowed him to do the work that he did?

In Newton's time, motion was thought to occur because of motive forces.
Indeed, that was one of the arguments for a creator at the time: to keep
the world running.  Angels pushed the planets, etc.  That's why Newton's
laws of motion were to revolutionary: they cast off these superstitions.

> >> On the other hand, investigators such as Cuvier and Linnaeus were
> >> explicitly motivated by their creationist convictions and made
> >> significant contributions because of, and not in spite of, their
> >> interpretive framework.  From such we get the foundations of
> >> paleontology and taxonomy (which, ironically, are now in many
> >> respects evolutionary disciplines).
> 
> > I'd like some examples of the above.  Their contributions are independant
> > of creationism and evolution.  What applicable parts of the religious
> > framework of their time did their work need to retain? Or did they simply
> > sidestep it entirely?
> 
> Linnaeus believed that he was reconstructing the plan of creation in
> setting up his classification system.
> 
> "Linnaeus introduced his system partly as a convenient aid to memory,
> a means of making comprehensible the diversity of nature.  But
> Linnaeus also had a higher purpose than merely to catalogue nature.  He
> believed that he was uncovering the plan of the Creator.  Linnaeus and
> his followers recognized genera, families, and other categories on the
> basis of similarities in structure, and believed that each group had a
> set of features which were its essence, or ideal plan, corresponding
> to something in the mind of the Creator.  Comparative anatomy
> developed as a means of searching out these ideal plans."  [1p303]

Linnaeus' advantage was mostly that he was one of the first botanists to
travel and collect widely.  This allowed him to observe vast numbers of
new species closely allied to those he was familiar with.  He built a huge
reference collection which allowed him to make accurate observations
of newly discovered characters in plants from other localities.  This
required no religious framework.  I think there is something about this
in "A Species Of Eternity".

Anyhow, I think I'll cede you this argument: that Linneaus was motivated
by religious beliefs (which, ironically, most creationists wouldn't
hold today.  How many of them are Platonists?)

> > (Actually, there is one perverse [but reputable] group calling themselves
> > pattern cladists who claim evolution is entirely unnecessary to taxonomy:
> > that they can discern the characters upon which taxonomy is based without
> > evolutionary assumptions.  Most cladists [including some friends of mine]
> > think it a crock.)
> 
> Most majority viewpoints were minority viewpoints at one time.
> 
> Why are they perverse?  (I'm not arguing - just wondering.)  It is a
> safe bet that Linnaeus entertained very few evolutionary assumptions.
> Was his work a crock?  Was he perverse?

The perversity arises in deciding what a character is.  Is it analogous or
homologous?  Philosophically, a pattern cladist (or creationist for that
matter) must consider all characters analogous.  If characters are
homologous, then ancestors (or ancestor-like species) can be hypothesized
and found, like Archaeopteryx.  Creationists and pattern cladists have
no philosophical reason to postulate ancestral species, and thus there is
a class of predictions they cannot make.

> > Creation may have been one of their assumptions: but that assumption was
> > not necessary to their results.
> 
> Just as evolution is irrelevant to a lot of research today (e.g., as
> with the pattern cladists you mentioned above).  What does that prove?
> I didn't say that the assumption of creation was *necessary*.  I said
> it doesn't necessarily result in garbage research.

Of course evolution is irrelevant to much research today, just as 2+2=4 is.
The point is that there are many fields where the assumption of evolution
is essential to the work, because of the deduction of homology.  Any time
we try to apply information gleaned from one organism to another, we do
so because we think the organisms are homologous.  If I test a drug on a
rat before I test it on a human, I do so because the rat's biochemistry is
largely homologous to a human's.

> >>>> [DuBois]
> >>>> Your argument also contains within itself the seeds of its own
> >>>> destruction.  Leaving creationism vague doesn't make it difficult to
> >>>> challenge.  You demonstrate that, by asserting the vagueness, and
> >>>> attacking creationism on that ground.  Your refute yourself!
> >> 
> >>> [Huybensz]
> >>> So eager to goad, you leap into erroneous arguments.  Difficult is not
> >>> impossible.  No self refutation occurred there.  Sheesh.
> >> 
> >> "Eager to goad"?  Speak for yourself, Mike.  The argument was that it
> >> wasn't *difficult*, not that it wasn't impossible.  So eager to tell me
> >> I'm eager to goad, you don't read what I wrote first...
> 
> > I'll spell out your syllogism to you.  "Mike says X is difficult."
> > "Mike does X."  "Therefore it was not difficult, and Mike has contradicted
> > himself."  But what measure of difficulty have you selected?
> 
> You seem to have forgotten that it was Ernest Hua who said it was
> difficult.  My first paragragh, above, was directed to him, not you.
> Learn your alphabet before you start giving me spelling lessons.

The syllogism applies equally well with my name as with Ernest's.  The FORM
of your argument was incorrect.  That means that whatever specifics you
plug into that form, your conclusion is invallid.  Learn your logic before
you start chiding me.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh