[lit-ideas] What Darwin Inferred, What Darwin Implied
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 21:51:18 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 5/28/2013 1:14:55 P.M. UTC-02,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx was quoting from Lennox:
"It is an unfortunate fact that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by
natural selection is typically discussed either as a speculative leap of
genius or as the inevitable product of various sorts of religious,
political, scientific and philosophical influences on him. In this
lecture I will present Darwin’s discoveries in a very different light,
as the product of Darwin constantly asking questions and pursuing long
and complex chain of inductive reasoning in which his ability to
integrate apparently unrelated abstractions —“large classes of facts” as
he sometimes refers to them in On the Origin of Species—plays the key
role. To explore these aspects of Darwin’s research I rely on the large
mass of unpublished notes, notebooks and correspondence (now available
online) for it is here that one sees Darwin’s uncommon powers of
inductive reasoning at work."
and commenting:
"Perhaps someone might care to flesh out this claimed "inductive
reasoning" so we can see how "inductive" it really is - or reveal whether this
is
just yet another of those traditional but fraudulent claims made as to the
role of "inductive reasoning" in science by people who really should better by
now?"
Mmm.
People (usage theorists) say that people confuse 'infer' and 'imply' and I
do -- but perhaps the confusion is apt here.
One thing is what Darwin inferred (inductively, deductively, abductively,
what have you).
Another thing is what Darwin IMPLIED (if anything -- or 'implicated').
In other (quite other) words: one thing is Darwin's "context of discovery";
quite another his "context of justification" (I think the distinction is
Popper's).
McEvoy was not convinced with my rambling thoughts on why Darwin was an
inductivist. I was suggesting that, as a Griceian, you give me an instance of
"p" (for any proposition "p") and I can tell you, by mere inspection of
"p", whether "p" was reached inductively, deductively, abductively, or what
not.
And I was suggesting that, since OBVIOUSLY Darwin's "p" is of the type it
is, Darwin MUST have arrived at it "inductively".
Or not, of course,
Cheers,
Speranza
----
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infer
"There are two ways in which the word "infer" is sometimes used as if it
meant "imply". "Implication" is done by a person when making a "statement",
whereas "inference" is done to a proposition after it had already been made
or assumed. Secondly, the word "infer" can sometimes be used to mean
"allude" or "express" in a suggestive manner rather than as a direct
"statement".
Using the word "infer" in this sense is now generally considered
incorrect. [1] [2]"
Imply or Infer?
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000232.htm
Imply means "to state indirectly."
Infer means "to draw a conclusion."
You may infer something from an implication, but you would not imply
something from an inference.
Incorrect: She implied that he was from Canada by his accent.
Correct: She inferred that he was from Canada by his accent.
Incorrect: The poem inferred that the lover was unfaithful.
Correct: The poem implied that the lover was unfaithful.
Correct: He inferred from the poem that the lover was unfaithful.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
