On 11/05/2006, at 5:45 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Much the same could be
said of evolution -- we have very little direct evidence,
*hiss* ;)
We have a LOT of direct evidence. The fossil record. Genetic drift,
actual speciation events.
Are you using "evolution" as shorthand for "evolution by natural
selection of inherited variability"? In which case, the argument as
originally made by Darwin and Wallace was short on direct evidence
(as the mechanism of heredity was totally unknown, discrete
inheritance was 50 years later, the age of the earth was woefully
inaccurate, and continental drift unimaginable). But all this later
evidence is either direct evidence for evolution, or direct evidence
of natural testable predictors.
It's just wrong to say there's little direct evidence, sorry.
I believe that one can reasonably and logically turn these ideas
around and
make a fine argument that our only source of knowledge is art -- we
accept
theories that fit most beautifully with our observations about the
world,
then justify them experimentally.
Art can contain lessons (in fact, that's arguably how art evolved).
So art and science are the modern names for the two facets of
learning. Aboriginal "rock art" contains dreaming stories. These are
explanations of why things are, how they came to be. When they were
made, they conveyed an explanation. But because we now recognise the
explanation is incorrect, they become myth and art.
Of course, I actually believe that neither of these is true alone.
Science
and art complement one another. Our irrational notions of beauty and
elegance guide us just as surely as our rational notions of testing
and
observation. To lose oneself in one or the other is to be half a
person.
Testing and observation is only rational in the modern sense. It's
totally unconscious normally, and it's how we make sense of the world
at the most basic interactive level.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
