Resolution and science (was: Re: Homophobia-- human universal?)

Bryant (mycol1@unm.edu)
31 Aug 1996 14:39:44 -0600

In article <504kpi$2ek@bubbla.uri.edu>, Susan <rgq101@uriacc.uri.edu> wrote:
>mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) wrote:
>
>>I think the issues of spontaneous generation and vitalism have been
>>resolved. Don't you? :)
>
>For now. But how many times have you read "this contradicts everything
>we thought we knew" (which I heard most recently about the structure of
>the rings of Saturn), or old theories which everyone thought were
>disproved turned out to have an aspect which wasn't so bad (such as
>female choice in evolution).

Unfortunately, female choice and adapationism in general were not so
much "disproven" in the early days as they were simply proclaimed obviously
incorrect and not followed up on empirically. *This* is a form of bias
that plagues biologists still

(I often cite Gould for this Socratic 'reasoning away' of the need to test
predictions even while he critiques unnamed adaptationists for supposedly
doing the same thing.)

Your larger point is well taken, though.

>Susan

Bryant