Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions

Fitzhugh, Kirk

doi:10.1007/s11692-010-9088-1

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather than promoting increased ultimate (evolutionary) understanding through the testing of specific and phylogenetic hypotheses, the tendency is for investigators to revert to the pursuit of enhancements of descriptive aspects (observation statements) regarding organisms or some proximate explanations. Two complicating issues, which have been addressed elsewhere, are the following: (1) the lack of emphasis on the causal questions that prompt the inferences that serve as answers (Fitzhugh 2006a-c), and (2) the tendency to confuse those inferences with the testing of resultant hypotheses (Fitzhugh 2006a(Fitzhugh , 2008a(Fitzhugh , 2010ae.g. Schmidt 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, my sense perceptions of a group of objects might lead me to conclude that "This is a glass of water." The conclusion is inferred by that class of non-deductive reasoning known as abduction, wherein effects are conjoined with one or more theories to infer a tentative cause (Peirce 1878(Peirce , 1931(Peirce , 1932(Peirce , 1933a(Peirce , 1933b(Peirce , 1934(Peirce , 1935(Peirce , 1958a(Peirce , 1958bHanson 1958;Achinstein 1970;Fann 1970;Reilly 1970;Curd 1980;Nickles 1980;Thagard 1988;Josephson & Josephson 1994;Hacking 2001;Magnani 2001;Psillos 2002Psillos , 2007Godfrey-Smith 2003;Norton 2003;Walton 2004;Aliseda 2006;Fitzhugh 2005aFitzhugh , 2005bFitzhugh , 2006aFitzhugh , 2006bFitzhugh , 2008aFitzhugh -c, 2009Fitzhugh , 2010aSchurz 2008). Abductive inference can be schematized as:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The limits of understanding in biological systematics

Fitzhugh¹

2012

Zootaxa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ernst Mayr’s (1961, Science 131: 1501–1506) distinction between proximate and ultimate causation in biology is examined with regard to the acquisition of understanding in biological systematics. Rather than a two-part distinction, understanding in systematics is characterized by relations between three explanatory components: descriptive (observation statements)—proximate (ontogenetic hypotheses)—ultimate (e.g. specific and phylogenetic hypotheses). Initial inferential actions in each component involve reasoning to explanatory hypotheses via abductive inference, providing preliminary understanding. Testing hypotheses, to critically assess understanding, is varied. Descriptive- and proximate-level hypotheses are routinely tested, but ultimate hypotheses present inherent difficulties that impose severe limits, contrary to what is usually claimed in the systematics literature. The problem is compounded by imprecise considerations of ‘evidence’ and ‘support.’ For instance, in most cases, the ‘evidence’ offering ‘support’ for phylogenetic hypotheses, as cladograms, is nothing more than the abductive evidence (premises) used to infer those hypotheses, i.e. character data and associated phylogenetic-based theories. By definition, such evidence only offers initial, trivial understanding, whereas the pertinent evidence sought in the sciences is test evidence, which cannot be supplanted by character data. The pursuit of ultimate understanding by way of spurious procedures such as contrived testing, Bremer support, and resampling methods are discussed with regard to phylogenetic hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The limits of understanding in biological systematics

Fitzhugh¹

2012

Zootaxa

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At its most basic, we have to acknowledge three types of reasoning and their operational relations: abduction, deduction, and induction. This is a topic that has been extensively examined in relation to systematics (Fitzhugh ,b, ,b,c, ,b,c, , , , , , , ,b,c), so only a brief overview will be given here.…”

Section: Scientific Inquiry and Biological Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Desper & Gascuel ; Zwickl & Hillis ; Guindon & Gascuel ; Poe ; Heath et al. ; Nabhan & Sarkar ), wherein with the continued addition of character data or taxa, one will “converge” to the “true tree” or “phylogeny.” None of these approaches actually offers the means to empirically evaluate the causal claims implied by cladograms (Fitzhugh , , , , , ). Contrary to what is so commonly asserted, ultimate causal understanding is not moved beyond its initial standing.…”

Section: Descriptive Proximate Ultimate Understanding In Systematicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ernst Mayr, causal understanding, and systematics: an example using sabelliform polychaetes

Fitzhugh

2016

Invertebrate Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ernst Mayr suggested that understanding the features of organisms involves the study of what he called "proximate" and "ultimate" causes. Proximate causes of characters occur during the life of the organism; ultimate causes occur prior to the life of the organism, as part of the evolutionary history leading to organisms in the present. Mayr also pointed out that descriptive biology is important because it provides the basis for pursuing understanding by way of proximate and ultimate causes. Systematics encompasses each of these components. We routinely describe organisms (not taxa), and often infer proximate hypotheses (e.g., ontogenetic, functional, and physiological causes) to explain particular characters. Characters are also explained by ultimate causes in the form of intraspecific, specific, and phylogenetic hypotheses. Success at attaining ultimate understanding is distinctly limited, however, since these hypotheses are rarely tested. The consequence is that we often use specific and phylogenetic hypotheses to move toward the study of descriptive aspects and proximate understanding, where increases in causal understanding are more successful. An example of interactions between descriptive, proximate, and ultimate understanding are presented from research on the sabelliform groups Fabriciidae and Sabellidae. Members of both families have what is interpreted as two peristomial rings, anterior and posterior. A distinct mid-ventral patch of cilia occurs on the anterior peristomial ring among Fabriciidae, and the posterior peristomial ring among Sabellidae. Phylogenetic hypotheses suggest these different cilia patches are synapomorphies for the respective families. Since these phylogenetic hypotheses cannot be tested, it will be more productive to investigate whether or not these patches of cilia are homologous, which might be established through ontogenetic and histological studies of proximate causes: are these cilia derived from the larval prototroch or metatroch? Are anterior and posterior peristomial rings really peristomial? Studies directed at these proximate causes offer valuable increased understanding not possible for ultimate causes in systematics.

show abstract

“…Inferring tentative causes from observed effects is known as abductive reasoning, or abduction (Peirce, 1878(Peirce, , 1931(Peirce, , 1932(Peirce, , 1933a(Peirce, , 1933b(Peirce, , 1934(Peirce, , 1935(Peirce, , 1958a(Peirce, , 1958bHanson, 1958;Achinstein, 1970;Fann, 1970;Reilly, 1970;Curd, 1980;Nickles, 1980;Thagard, 1988;Josephson and Josephson, 1994;Baker, 1996;Hacking, 2001;Magnani, 2001;Psillos, 2002Psillos, , 2007Psillos, , 2011Godfrey-Smith, 2003;Norton, 2003;Walton, 2004;Aliseda, 2006;Fitzhugh, 2005aFitzhugh, , 2005bFitzhugh, , 2006aFitzhugh, , 2006bFitzhugh, , 2008a2008b;2008c, 2009, 2010aSchurz, 2008). Abduction has the form:…”

Section: Phylogenetic Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Character mapping and cladogram comparison versus the requirement of total evidence: does it matter for polychaete systematics?

Fitzhugh

2014

Mem. Mus. Vic.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fitzhugh, K. 2014. Character mapping and cladogram comparison versus the requirement of total evidence: does it matter for polychaete systematics? Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71: 67-78.The practice of partitioning data for the inferences of phylogenetic hypotheses has become a routine practice in biological systematics. Two popular approaches: (i) mapping 'morphological' characters onto 'molecular' phylogenies, and (ii) comparing 'morphological' and 'molecular' phylogenies, are examined in light of what is known as the requirement of total evidence. Inferences of phylogenetic hypotheses, indeed all taxa, occur by a type of non-deductive reasoning known as abduction. The intent of abduction is to offer at least tentative causal accounts that explain character data. The rational acceptance of abductively derived hypotheses is subject to conditions of the requirement of total evidence as a matter of the evidential support for those hypotheses. It is shown that both character mapping and comparisons of cladograms using partitioned datasets are procedures that severely reduce the credibility of phylogenetic hypotheses. This problem is alleviated by acknowledging the formal structure of the why-questions we ask in relation to character data, for which phylogenetic hypotheses serve as answers.

show abstract

Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions

Cited by 16 publications

References 74 publications

The limits of understanding in biological systematics

The limits of understanding in biological systematics

Ernst Mayr, causal understanding, and systematics: an example using sabelliform polychaetes

Character mapping and cladogram comparison versus the requirement of total evidence: does it matter for polychaete systematics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About