Nowhere have I stated that scientists should bear every possible theory in mind. If you believe I have done so, please indicate precisely where.
It is implicate in your argument. If scientists must consider teleology as an explanation for anything they study, then why should they disregard anything at all? As I asked before, should scientists consider the possibility of witchcraft in their work? If they must consider an idea such as teleology in nature, then why not fairies, or some other phenomenon, for which the evidence is on a par with teleology. It is merely the inevitable logical conclusion of your argument. Unless you
are suggesting that scientists should consider
absolutely everything, then you need to provide some reason why teleology should be considered above, say, voodoo.
The reason that some theories are given more consideration than others is very simple; evidence. There is no evidence for teleology. If there were, it would be considered. Since there is not, it is ignored. If you can find some evidence for teleology then it would be taken into account in science. Until then, it remains on a par with witchcraft and rain dances. Teleology has had its day and science has moved on to considering ideas that are actually useful.
I am pointing out that the vast majority of scientific work is about filling in details, not achieving breakthroughs in understanding. This requires a quiet acceptance of the prevailing paradigm within the field and a mandatory rejection of data or concepts hostile to it.
What the majority of scientific work actually entails is the making of observations. This doesn't require the acceptance or rejection of anything. There is little point in questioning the prevailing paradigm unless one has an observation that seems to contradict it. Contrary to what you seem to think, the search for such observations is the very bread and butter of modern science.
I did not provide a reference for Kuhn since this work is almost as well known as 'On the Origin of Species'.
Thanks for providing the reference. I would dispute that Kuhn's work is as well known as Origins though. I just popped both titles into Googlefight, and Kuhn's book came out with a mere 1,850,000 results, compared to 7,410,000 for Origins.
Here is a quote from 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', where Kuhn is discussing paradigm shift;
quote:
First, the new candidate must seem to resolve some outstanding and generally recognized problem that can be met in no other way. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem solving activity that has accrued to science through its predecessors.
Teleology is very far from passing these tests, especially the first.
As for plate tectonics, it is a very poor comparison to modern science; all this happened many years ago and the standard of scientific work has been refined and improved since then.
I am not entirely clear what 'my method' is. I think you mean not closing off avenues of research, or alternative explanations on dogmatic grounds.
Well, is that your position? If so, you must recognise that it is not possible to consider all possibilities at once. We must necessarily concentrate on the most useful concepts. The line has to be drawn somewhere; this is not dogmatism, it is practical necessity.
The reason that plate tectonics/continental drift took so long (half a century, plus) to be accepted was precisely because 'my method' was not followed. Instead geologists and geophysicists rejected evidence that pointed towards drifitng continents and plate tectonics on the dogmatic grounds that 'it was not possible'.
They rejected it because they lacked key pieces of evidence that would allow them to make cohesive sense of the idea. From the
wiki article on plate tectonics;
quote:
The discovery of radium and its associated heating properties in 1896 prompted a re-examination of the apparent age of the Earth,[3] since this had been estimated by its cooling rate and assumption the Earth's surface radiated like a black body.[4] Those calculations implied that, even if it started at red heat, the Earth would have dropped to its present temperature in a few tens of millions of years. Armed with the knowledge of a new heat source, scientists reasoned it was credible that the Earth was much older, and also that its core was still sufficiently hot to be liquid.
Before information like this was available, the plate hypothesis lacked crucial details of evidence that it needed in order to make it credible. Without the knowledge of radium, the theory seemed to have a serious hole in it. Still, it was nonetheless pursued, just as you suggest that left-field ideas should be. It was pursued because, whatever the problems with the idea, it did have evidence in its favour. This is where your comparison between plate tectonics and teleology breaks down. There just isn't any evidence for teleology. The two examples are not equivalent.
What is important about both the example of plate tectonics and
H.pylori is that they were both accepted eventually. They were not stopped, merely delayed. You are quite right in pointing out that stubborn adherence to an existing paradigm is one of the potential flaws in how science is carried out, but insisting that scientists consider outdated and useless hypotheses in order to counter it is absurd. Scientists must keep an open mind and be receptive to new explanations, but if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.
There is little opportunity to explore the suggestions of a teleological character to some of nature's fundamental characteristics if we exclude these on an a priori basis.
You say this as though there were any such suggestions. There aren't. If I'm wrong, please point out where these "suggestions" can be found.
Your example of ulcers and bacteria merely confirms my point. On a comparatively minor concept (unless of course you suffer from ulcers)the researchers encountered great hostility from the holders of the cherished current paradigm. Do you really expect the resistance to be less when the paradigm under threat lies at the heart of modern science?
You have yet to demonstrate that lack of interest in teleology lies at the heart of modern science.
Bottom line; should scientists retain an open mind? Of course.
Should non-evidenced concepts such as teleology be considered in the everyday work of research scientists? Not unless you are willing to consider every conceivable non-evidenced hypothesis. Unless you can provide a reason to consider teleology, it will continue to be listed amongst the infinite number of ideas that are not considered, from teleology to time travel.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2
