More than 16,000 pages of Darwin's research on evolution released online

[Perspicuo]

Over 16,000 pages of Darwin's research on evolution released online
http://www.sciencealert.com/over-16-000-pages-of-darwin-s-research-on-evolution-released-online

This week, 155 years ago, Charles Darwin published a book that would change science forever - On the Origin of the Species. Over the past seven years, the American Museum of Natural History's (AMNH) Darwin Manuscripts Project has been digitising all of Darwin’s original notes and musings on evolution so they can be freely distributed online.

Today, the manuscripts project reached the halfway mark by releasing over 16,000 high-resolution images of Darwin’s research on evolution to the public. The AMNH says the documents released "cover the 25-year period in which Darwin became convinced of evolution; discovered natural selection; developed explanations of adaptation, speciation, and a branching tree of life; and wrote the Origin”.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Quoteminers! Start your search engines!

 

[Perspicuo]

Quoteminers! Start your search engines!

They can try, but information is a treasure: AMNH are publishing whole contexts, not quotations. A lone author may quote-mine, knowing his audience will not have the context -that is the key to quote-mining success. If all of it is online, it will be easier for others to double check.

 

[bilby]

Quoteminers! Start your search engines!

They can try, but information is a treasure: AMNH are publishing whole contexts, not quotations. A lone author may quote-mine, knowing his audience will not have the context -that is the key to quote-mining success. If all of it is online, it will be easier for others to double check.

Perhaps so; but the whole business of quote-mining Darwin misses the point; Theists are so habituated to the idea of unquestionable authority that they fail to grasp that while the originator of an idea may be lauded for his novel insight, he is not revered as an infallible authority, and as such any beliefs he might or might not have held have zero bearing on the parts of his work that are supported by evidence.

If Darwin can be found to have said that God is responsible for the variety of life on Earth - even in the (unlikely) event that this was what he meant when taken in context, and was his position after he had formulated his Theory of Evolution - this would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of the theory.

Theories are dependent on evidence; not on the beliefs, nor the authority of their originators.

Science is not a theological debating society, where arguments can be won by discrediting individual authors, or by appealing to the emotions of the audience. The very existence of quote-mining is a failure to recognise that fundamental truth.

Using quotes from supposed authorities (whether in context or not) to attack scientific theories is like using small balls of wet tissue paper to attack a main battle tank. It simply isn't close to being up to the job.

 

[fromderinside]

Science is not a theological debating society, where arguments can be won by discrediting individual authors, or by appealing to the emotions of the audience. The very existence of quote-mining is a failure to recognise that fundamental truth.

Using quotes from supposed authorities (whether in context or not) to attack scientific theories is like using small balls of wet tissue paper to attack a main battle tank. It simply isn't close to being up to the job.

When competing theories based on belief about how facts come together as described by such theories it seems that all what you write doesn't take place in science does take place in science. The impasse between relativity and quantum mechanics was one such up to the 50's. Theory of Everything and Standard Model are two current models where much flack is exchanged including personality and reputation assassinations. One can go to  Theory_of_everything#Arguments_against_a_theory_of_everything for a launch pad into the world of destroyed and sullied reputations, starting with a lost bet. (memories of Einstein anyone). Don't be fooled by the latest two team approach at CERN. Heads are going to roll in about 2016.

 

[bilby]

Science is not a theological debating society, where arguments can be won by discrediting individual authors, or by appealing to the emotions of the audience. The very existence of quote-mining is a failure to recognise that fundamental truth.

Using quotes from supposed authorities (whether in context or not) to attack scientific theories is like using small balls of wet tissue paper to attack a main battle tank. It simply isn't close to being up to the job.

When competing theories based on belief about how facts come together as described by such theories it seems that all what you write doesn't take place in science does take place in science. The impasse between relativity and quantum mechanics was one such up to the 50's. Theory of Everything and Standard Model are two current models where much flack is exchanged including personality and reputation assassinations. One can go to  Theory_of_everything#Arguments_against_a_theory_of_everything for a launch pad into the world of destroyed and sullied reputations, starting with a lost bet. (memories of Einstein anyone). Don't be fooled by the latest two team approach at CERN. Heads are going to roll in about 2016.

Scientists are humans, and fuck things up just like all humans do.

But when they engage in logical fallacies to defend indefensible positions, they are not engaged in doing science.

Those who use the scientific method may not win the short-term, ego-driven emotional battles for hearts and minds; but ultimately they cannot fail to win the scientific battle; even if they need to wait for all of the self-interested protagonists to die before they can claim victory.

 

[fromderinside]

When competing theories based on belief about how facts come together as described by such theories it seems that all what you write doesn't take place in science does take place in science. The impasse between relativity and quantum mechanics was one such up to the 50's. Theory of Everything and Standard Model are two current models where much flack is exchanged including personality and reputation assassinations. One can go to  Theory_of_everything#Arguments_against_a_theory_of_everything for a launch pad into the world of destroyed and sullied reputations, starting with a lost bet. (memories of Einstein anyone). Don't be fooled by the latest two team approach at CERN. Heads are going to roll in about 2016.

Scientists are humans, and fuck things up just like all humans do.

But when they engage in logical fallacies to defend indefensible positions, they are not engaged in doing science.

Those who use the scientific method may not win the short-term, ego-driven emotional battles for hearts and minds; but ultimately they cannot fail to win the scientific battle; even if they need to wait for all of the self-interested protagonists to die before they can claim victory.

..so you've avoided all this agitation by social scientists for emergence and subjective measurement for all the last century?

 

[Underseer]

Scientists are humans, and fuck things up just like all humans do.

But when they engage in logical fallacies to defend indefensible positions, they are not engaged in doing science.

Those who use the scientific method may not win the short-term, ego-driven emotional battles for hearts and minds; but ultimately they cannot fail to win the scientific battle; even if they need to wait for all of the self-interested protagonists to die before they can claim victory.

..so you've avoided all this agitation by social scientists for emergence and subjective measurement for all the last century?

Scientists argue. That is part of the scientific process, not a threat to it.

 

[fromderinside]

..so you've avoided all this agitation by social scientists for emergence and subjective measurement for all the last century?

Scientists argue. That is part of the scientific process, not a threat to it.

Scientists who argue for changes in the structure of science permitting subjective impressions to be treated as objective data is a threat to science.

 

[Clivedurdle]

If Darwin can be found to have said that God is responsible for the variety of life on Earth

January 1836 (Voyage of the Beagle) (Birth of a Theory)




"An unbeliever in everything beyond his own reason might exclaim 'Surely two distinct Creators must have been [at] work.'"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/diary/1836.html

 

[dx713]

Scientists argue. That is part of the scientific process, not a threat to it.

Scientists who argue for changes in the structure of science permitting subjective impressions to be treated as objective data is a threat to science.

Records of subjective impressions are objective data. As long as you remember it's data about subjective impressions, it's perfectly valid science.

 

[fromderinside]

Scientists who argue for changes in the structure of science permitting subjective impressions to be treated as objective data is a threat to science.

Records of subjective impressions are objective data. As long as you remember it's data about subjective impressions, it's perfectly valid science.

Not so. Subjective impressions need be more than correlated with objective measures such as fmri. Subjective impressions need to be objectively validated, else, we're back to playing the games Wundt tried in the 19th century.

An example> If one can make a good case such as through anatomical evolutionary routes to sites AND temporally linked to O₂ uptake activity AND that activity is objectively and independently tied to metabolism AND that set of impressions are repeatable across individuals and time, then, if and only if, they are validated through separate objective means can impressions be said to be candidates for objective data.

The linkages need to be as solid as, say observers reporting detecting or comparing stimuli, before one can even consider them objective datum.

I'm gonna be a piss ant here since it gets into where I work.

 

[dx713]

Because it's useless in your field doesn't mean it cannot be used in other field.
I doubt my boss would have paid me and my colleagues to collect and use subjective evaluations during more than 10 years if it was no help to the end product.