Contradictions On Darwin's Theory Of Natural Selection

From the public’s perspective, Darwin claimed to have proceeded with his scientific research using the induction method. Ayala counters this with Darwin's own notes and letters, which show that Darwin used theories that were similar to the deductive method. Ironically, Darwin commissioned his theory of natural selection earlier than thought and spent most of his time afterwards collecting empirical evidence that would corroborate and test his theory of natural selection. The contradictions in Darwin’s published and practiced methods can be explained by the negative mood of the time towards the deductive method. Darwin followed the inductivist view due to its prevalence and usage by well known British philosophers such as John Mill. When used,

Inductive methods hold that a scientist should observe phenomena and record these observations without any preconceptions as to what truth the observations hold. This way objectivity could be reached. However, the inductive method fails in several counts. For one, the inductive method does not take into consideration the actual methodology of science. Most scientist work with a preconceived plan as to what they expect to see and what questions can be answered from observations. An example of the disadvantaged of the inductive method is a scientist who observes and takes notes of everything. He observes one tree with leaves, and then observes a second and a third, all with leaves. The conclusion the scientist comes to is that all trees have leaves. However, even if all trees observed have leaves, it is a logical possibility that the next tree will not have leaves. As Darwin noted with his gravel pit and pebble analogy, a scientist that can only record observations does not contribute anything to the advancement of science. Another fault of the inductive method is that no universal truths can be reached from singular, observation statements. Induction also fails at describing events in abstracts terms. Events like these are not observed, so they cannot be introduced since they were not directly seen. They can only be described in abstract suggestions or in the form

A hypothesis is merely a starting point in any scientific query and requires imagination. Without it, a scientist would merely be collecting barren observations. This is where the hypothetico-deductive method wins over the inductive method. For example, Mendel observed the proportional segregation of alternative traits from hybrid plants. However, using the inductive method, Mendel would have not been able to fully describe or formulate his hypothesis on genetics of plants because genes were not observable phenomena. In order to corroborate a hypothesis, a more critical exercise composed of four parts is required. First, it CCD - Summer 2015 Bio 100 - P2D1. Page 1 of