Charles Darwin's Work according to Popper, Kuhn and Van Fraassen - Essay Example

? Charles Darwin's work According to Popper, Kuhn, and Van Analysis of Charles Darwin's work according to Popper, Kuhn, and Van The philosophical work of Charles Darwin has attracted criticism from other philosophers that have supported or faulted his arguments. Darwin views tried to account for various evolution activities as well as the social nature of human beings. However, philosophers demonstrated interest in finding the truth in various components of life. Some philosophers have observed that Darwin arguments failed to provide concrete reasons while other believes that interpretation of the arguments should take their immediate context (Auletta, et.al.2011). Many philosophers have debated the views of Darwin pointing of the weaknesses as well as possibilities. The evolutionary biology has been subject to scientific tests and principles as well as theological thinking. This paper will explore the views of Popper, Kuhn, and Van in relation to Charles Darwin work on evolution. Karl Popper on Darwin Karl Popper viewed Science as a means of distinguishing theories from myths or traditional believes. The questions raised by people about aspects of life should be subject to scientific analysis. Darwin’s theory clashed with Biblical view of creation, subjecting it to Scientific proves. Popper observed that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not have components, which are subject to scientific measurement (Auletta, et.al.2011). For instance, the survival of species based on how fit they are, in relation to conformation to changes in environment does not contain any bit of science because no species can survive if it is weak. In Popper’s view, Darwin theory does not qualify as a science. Popper’s perspective of science in relation to Darwin theory appears in four steps; first problem selection, second creation of hypothesis in relation to problem solution, third is to test the theory presented, and lastly develop an argument about the result. The knowledge built through the scientific argument would eliminate errors created through criticism. This argument contends that knowledge does not occur through a single suggestion, but must command some universality on the theory introduced. In Popper’s view, the learning that the society acquires is through mistakes that people make. Thus, the separation of truth from myths in the scientific way must consist approving and disapproving the exiting view. Darwin’s theory argued that the emergence of creatures in the present world took place after other creatures suffered wastages of unimagined proportion. The theory does not explain the source of suffering thus subjecting it more questions based on scientific credibility. Popper argues that the purpose served by the creatures that led to their extinction must be provable. Popper believes that Darwin must have created a theological problem or unearthed an old problem that was not in focus (Radick, 2003). The outcome of suffering does not lead a viable species to overtake the present challenges, but the cause of the suffering must be evident. Thus, this argument proposed by Popper disapproves the work of Darwin on the following accounts: first, the argument does not contain any scientific element. That is a scientific element can be subject to test through comparison of the existing facts and the anticipated outcomes. Second, the argument put forward by Darwin refuted the ontological boundaries between the animal kingdom and humanity. Popper argued that the theory puts animals to appear more human while humans appeared more animal (Radick, 2003). The explanation of evolution as put by Darwin traces the beginning of life from scratches, which are not provable scientifically. The evolution of apes into human beings reduces science to myths. Critics have argued that Popper promoted non-revolutionary interests; however, his argument tends to demonstrate his feelings about the concept of evolution (Radick, 2003). Popper believes that a real world existed, independent of Darwin or human views. He believed that science was close to the world that he had conceived. However, Popper observed the problem of demarcation with Darwin’s theory by arguing that science did not conclusively get the right reasons. Popper accepts some views in Darwin’s theory by arguing that certain behavioral change occurs due to evolution. This argument tends to support Darwin’s idea of evolution in response changes in environment, which shapes behavior. Natural selection would subjection species to various conditions that are extreme (Ruse, 2009). In case a creature does not change to suite the existing condition, then the creature would be extinct. Thomas Kuhn on Darwin Kuhn perspective on Charles Darwin theory tends to accept the theory as scientific. Kuhn posits that Darwin had a genius mind because he was able to reason out of nothing to come up with something (Marcum, 2005). Before Darwin’s work, no theory had suggested an explanation to the existence of man or animals apart from the religion theory. Kuhn argues that people should not openly criticize Darwin theory without considering factors that contributed to Darwin’s thoughts (Auletta, et.al.2011). Kuhn relates scientific arguments and the religious perspective in explaining the evolution theory. Science explains its arguments through methodologies that command universal acceptability. The philosophy in Kuhn’s argument claims that a relation exists between religious argument and science. Kuhn does not accept the classical view of science, which insists that some methodological aspects must exist in scientific explanations as well as provable facts about the argument in question. Kuhn argues that science accepts theories and views whenever a challenging fact about the same thing does not exist. He argues that Darwin theory was valid in the sense that an evolution theory challenging Darwin’s argument did not exist before Darwin developed his theory. Many critics have argued that Kuhn’s rejection of secular scientific view tend to subject science to existence by virtue that similar argument regarding a question existed Marcum, 2005. For instance, natural selection presented in Darwin theory could be valid because of the arguments, which Darwin put forward. At the same time, the unexplained paradigms in the theory such as the cause of the selection system are subject to other theories, which explain their validity. Kuhn believes that the paradigm involved in the Darwin’s theory creates the base of arguments that would explain the validity of Darwin’s argument (Voelker, 2006). For instance, the nature of science, which we observe in the society today, emanated from paradigms, which the society intended to solve. Kuhn believes that the scientific methodology emanated from paradigms, which existed in theories that explained natural science. Kuhn justify the work of Darwin by argument that one cannot compare a paradigm by another paradigm that is different using the given set of data used in explaining the previous paradigm (Voelker, 2006). In other words, a fact, which explains a given theory in science, does not apply in explaining another theory that has paradigms. Darwin proposed that natural selection took place because of changes that the animals and other creatures were able to go through. However, Kuhn argues that one cannot undergo change, but it occurs through experience. Ideally, the argument generates many questions because an individual would want to know how the change took place and what factors contributed to or initiated the process of change. Kuhn argues that science cannot be universal, but tends to take shape as influenced by cultural, historical, and sociological influences (Marcum, 2005). Scientific arguments took the observations in a given social set up and subjected the same to arguments. Thus, Darwin must have projected social influences in making his theory. Kuhn believes that postmodern science cannot ignore the sociological influences that led to contribution of Darwin (Marcum, 2005). The magnitude of importance in Darwin theory is quite important because it would influence the argument or the methodology that would characterize the modern science analysis. Kuhn argued that realists should distinguish between reasons and truth. Reasons form the foundation of science while truth is not subject to reason. Bas van Fraassen on Darwin The reception of the Charles Darwin theory of evolution opened a chapter of criticism and explanations. Van philosophical arguments tend to argue that scientific theories are subject to fierce competition because of nature of ideas that people tend to generate with a view of disapproving the existing theory. Realists tend to evaluate the content of an argument by relating to a given fact that presently exists (Ruse, 2009). Van argues that arguments against a given theory do not really explain the same argument as the preexisting theory. Realists construct their theories from observable items; however, the reception of these arguments tends to refute the ideas generated by the realists (Radick, 2003). Van rejects the scientific method of drawing a conclusion i.e. abduction. Science tends to justify a given event in history; however, the truth drawn in these arguments tends to borrow from other works. Van observes antirealists develop their arguments with a view of disapproving the existing argument. However, when their argument does not meet this requirement, it fails to score its intended purpose. Darwin created his argument through relating not existing beings, explaining the possible reasons that contributed to their extinction (Ruse, 2009). Van regard Darwin’s explanation through the above perspective i.e. Darwin did not rely on abduction to generate his theory. Since realists do not trace their arguments from the preexisting facts or methodology, Van believes that their argument is the best. Darwin’s argument on evolution pointed on issues that preexisted. For instance, Darwin argues that previous creatures could not adjust to or adapt to new environmental demands, thus leading to their extinction. Darwin’s argument tends to be intricate because it relates past issues to present development. However, Van counters the argument by illustrating two instances. First, he argues that present scientific arguments cannot account for pain, that is infinite and the alternative explanations to science are valid. Van argues that science cannot compel an individual attitude toward theory (Radick, 2003). In essence, theories serve to explain issues that are beyond scientific reasoning. For instance, arguments suggesting the existing of the first creatures tend to suggest views that are not subject to scientific fact. The existence of the pre creatures discussed in the Darwin evolution theory is subject to question according to the views of many critics who believe that science should be able to explain the existence of beings (Ruse, 2009). However, Fraassen Constructive empiricism posits that abduction reasoning would tend to relate the items observed in the real physical world as opposed to the things, which people perceive to have existed. Van’s arguments tend to observe scientific arguments from the point that they should explain the physical aspects, which are observable in the present life and give room for a probable explanation about things that preexisted. Darwin argued that the evolution theory gave answers to pertinent issues, which he was unable to learn when he was a theology student (Radick, 2003). Darwin observed that he had conceived the idea taught in theology as the truth, but disputed the same when he discovered the natural selection law. Darwin believed that each component of the human body or animal body evolved in order to achieve a given purpose. Many critics believe that Van’s argument in support of a middle ground on the concept of scientific evolution with respect to Darwin’s theory fails to justify his idea that the theory saved the future, past and the present (Ruse, 2009). Darwin took a position, which he justified through the theory of evolution. On the contrary, Van justified the theory of Darwin by developing observation-transcendent truth. Van uses assertion to legitimize the argument presented by Darwin in his theory. However, science cannot rely on assertions. Kuhn, Van, and Popper do not fully accept Darwin’s theory; however, they take different stands in relations to features of the theory. In conclusion, Darwin’s evolution theory argues that the concept of evolution gave rise to the present creatures. Darwin’s argument has been subject to criticism from philosophers such as Popper who argues that science has methodological means of accepting or determining a fact. Kuhn on the other hand argues that a paradigm cannot explain another paradigm, thus Darwin’s argument must have had some point. Van takes a supportive ground on the concept of evolution, by defending Darwin’s argument of evolution. He pointed out that theories developed by scientists are subject to criticism by people who intend to dispute them. It is important to note that theory projected some scientific aspects that the three philosophers accepted. References Auletta, G. et.al.2011. Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A Critical Appraisal 150 Years After «The Origin of Species». Roma: Gregorian&Biblical BookShop. http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_4.html Marcum, A. J. 2005. Thomas Kuhn's Revolution: An Historical Philosophy Of Science. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Radick, G. 2003. The Cambridge Companion To Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruse, M. 2009. Philosophy After Darwin: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Kentucky: Princeton University Press. Voelker, J. D. 2006. Thomas Kuhn: Revolution Against Scientific Realism. Retrieved 14 May 2012 Read More