Phi-Sci

Phi-sci: Short for philosophy-science; a branch of philosophy specializing in the field of scientific methodology. In the early eighties, the eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould declared that neoDarwinism, the orthodoxy in biology/evolutionary science, was dead. Gould was correct. It is twenty-five years later. Stephen Jay Gould is dead, and neo-Darwinism remains the orthodoxy in biology/evolution. I have pondered the post-mortem existence of neo-Darwinism for well over a decade and have presented, in article and book, several explanations of the situation, none of which Ill present here. Here, I will lay blame for this sorry situation at the feet of the University, i.e., our system of higher education. Now any system has, by definition, four components: Inputs, processing, outputs and memory. In the case of Boeing, the inputs are airplane parts, the processing is called assembly, and the outputs are airplanes. How about memory? Memory is responsible for quality control. Why? Memory has all the plans. The case of the University is more complicated. On one level, the inputs are lowereducated students and the outputs are higher-educated students. On another, more important level, the inputs are concepts and the outputs are expositions and critiques. (Bear in mind, the most important function of the University is to serve as interface between persons of genius, past and present, and the student generation capable of understanding those persons.) The processing is the work of the professors, of course. Where is the memory?the quality control? In the University, the professors themselves handle quality control, through a system called peer review. Biologists assay the work of their fellow biologists, physicists the work of fellow physicists, and so forth. Do you suppose that peer review is an adequate means of quality control? No, it is not. The inadequacy of this system is indicated by the fact that, in biology, neo-Darwinism remains the orthodoxy, the standard teaching, many years after its demise. Clearly, a more comprehensive quality control system is needed. My recommendation is that in addition to peer review, the University institute phi-sci review. Phi-sci is, as indicated, the science of scientific methodology. The phi- part of the term indicates that phi-sci is beholden to philosophy, the ancestral mother of the sciences. A number of early philosophers were phi-sci masters. Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, to name a few. In the modern period, we have a few as well, notably Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Isaac Newton.

Bacon gave us the modern scientific methodinductive reasoning. Newton created what might be called the modern Great Divide between theology and science. He did so with the dictum Hypotheses non fingo (I dont touch hypotheses). What did he mean by hypothesis? In his own words: Whatever is not deduced from the phenomena [under study] is to be called an hypothesis. Hypotheses, whether [concerning the] metaphysical or physical, whether of [relating to] occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. (In Newtons time, what we call science was known as experimental philosophy.) In other words, science puts forward theses, not hypo-theses. Hypo-theses are, by Newtons definition, concepts not drawn from close study of phenomena. In my book, Newtons dictum is correct. Was the dictum applied, strictly, in later times? No! In some cases, the dictum was egregiously violated. A case in point is that of Mr. Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Darwin was faced with the challenge of explaining such marvelous phenomena as the human eye without recourse to the traditional intelligent designer theory. The countertheory he offered is based on three propositions: *That gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct either do now exist or could have existed; *That all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable; and *That there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable derivation of structure or instinct. Sounds plausible, right? It sounded plausible to many of our predecessors, and as a result, Darwinism became the orthodox vision of life on which the modern world is based. Now if we had had a really good Newtonian phi-sci master available at the time Darwin presented his theory, that master would not have recognized Darwinism as scientific! Why? *Darwins first proposition is mere hypothesis. Not only is the idea hypothetical, it is ambiguously hypothetical, in that what it means is not what it appears to mean. For sure, gradations in perfection exist (some eyes are better than other eyes), but that is not the kind of gradation Darwin means. What Darwin means by gradation is this: The eye is the product of the accretion of numerous minute changes, the completion of any given change being a gradation. We are asked to take the existence of such gradations on faith! Stephen Jay Gould on this hypothesis: My own favorite target is the belief in slow and steady evolutionary change. The fossil record does not support it; mass extinctions and abrupt origination reign.

*The phi-sci master would have no problem with Darwins second proposition. Variation exists. Thats clearly evident. *Darwins third proposition is, again, hypothetical. No proof of the belief that the struggle for existence leads to the preservation of each profitable deviation is offered. The proposition has fallen out of favor, even with the Darwinists. Neo-Darwinist Ernst Myer, for instance, states flatly that Darwin was wrong. A strict application of the Newtonian dictum to Darwins theory leads us to conclude, as indicated, that Darwinism is not science. The proper label for it is pseudo-science. I say this with sadness. Darwinism and Social Darwinism have wrought great damage in the West and throughout the world, and I would like to think there was, at least, some justification for the damage. It is heart-rending to know that the tens of millions who died in the last century as the result of Social Darwinian political policies, died because the leading nations of the West mistook a pseudo-science for a science. Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey three feet from Newton. It is a pity that he didnt learn more than he did from the modern master of phi-sci. The story of Darwinism is not finished, unfortunately. Open the 13 November 06 issue of Time and you find the neo-Darwinian sophist Richard Dawkins presenting, as science, the same hypothesis (of gradualism) advanced by Darwin in 1859: For centuries, the most powerful argument for Gods existence was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so beautiful and elegant and so apparently purposeful, they could only have been made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is a gradual, incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, more adaptive perfection. Each step is not too improbable for us to countenance, but when you add them up cumulatively over millions of years, you get these monsters of improbability, like the human brain and the rain forest. Today, there is no more proof of this hypothesis than there was when Darwin made it! Note: Dawkins says merely that Darwin provided a simpler explanation (an arguable point); he doesnt say Darwin provided a simpler explanation that has proven correct. Reformation Needed What the continuing existence of neo-Darwinism in the University tells us is that peer review is a flop. The University needs a better quality control system. In my view, we need to train some new master phi-sci professionals asap, individuals with the capability of running truly effective quality control for the good ol U. How is it possible to do so?

*Academic philosophers can develop graduate programs in phi-sci. If philosophers need a little additional motivation, they might find it in this thought: Unfortunately, the field of philosophy was one of the casualties of Newtons dictum. After the Great Divide, experimental philosophy was re-named science; and the rest of philosophy was dumped into the not-science category. That is why, today, philosophy, is relegated to the Humanities division and taught alongside religion. Philosophers, you can, and should, reclaim the ancient role of philosophyas science of science! *University presidents and/or boards of directors can mandate the creation of an interdisciplinary major in phi-sci. Not only the intellectual and moral integrity of the University is at issue here, but also something called stature. Can a University that relies only upon peer review for its quality control, be considered a University of the first order? (Not for much longer.) *The many groups (societies, organizations, committees, etc.) concerned with ethics issues should understand that a necessary basis for the profession of ethics is phi-sci. In my view, most, if not all, contemporary ethicists are ill-equipped to deal with important ethics issues. Let these groups use their influence to promote the development of phi-sci programs in the University Postscript Ten years ago, my reflections on the University (based on twenty years experience) led me to create a University core curriculum in which a reformed field of philosophy plays a major role. Click here (New Millennium University) to find this curriculum. As youll see, a reformed philosophy plays a major role in my preferred system of higher education.

Copyright 2007 TDHall

For further information, see References/resources under the Writings section of this site.