The Lamarkian Quandary says the theory “relied entirely upon the alleged observations of giraffes”. I think that is why the page keeps coming back to it. The animal is supposed to be evidence for the explanation, then the explanation loses its authority and the animal carries on being evidence.
How much of what people think they have observed is actually the diagram they were taught? I remember a neck reaching for a branch much more clearly than I remember what the surrounding lesson said.
The neck is the convenient feature every explanation gets to use. It is apparently wrong to infer too much from it until the next explanation needs a very clear example.
A recognizable shape is not the whole complaint. It is a shape which seems to arrive already demonstrating the lesson. The branch is nearly always where the neck needs it to be.
I am asking whether the remembered observation is independent of the account. A drawing made to explain a theory is not an observation just because the drawing is familiar.
A diagram can leave everything fixed except the labels. That makes a change of explanation look very tidy. The giraffe never has to become less suited to being an illustration.
The original goes further than the diagram question: it calls the observations alleged. If you defend that sentence, the question is what was observed, not merely how well it was drawn.
The Lamarkian Quandary says the theory “relied entirely upon the alleged observations of giraffes”. I think that is why the page keeps coming back to it. The animal is supposed to be evidence for the explanation, then the explanation loses its authority and the animal carries on being evidence.
How much of what people think they have observed is actually the diagram they were taught? I remember a neck reaching for a branch much more clearly than I remember what the surrounding lesson said.
−+Collapse or expand reply by flatlander
The neck is the convenient feature every explanation gets to use. It is apparently wrong to infer too much from it until the next explanation needs a very clear example.
−+Collapse or expand reply by rustred
A recognizable shape is not the whole complaint. It is a shape which seems to arrive already demonstrating the lesson. The branch is nearly always where the neck needs it to be.
−+Collapse or expand reply by windowseat
i remember the branch too. if somebody asked me to draw the lesson from memory, the branch would be there before i could explain why.
−+Collapse or expand reply by metricsea
Rejecting a theory does not erase the things it tried to explain. An observation can remain useful even if the account attached to it was wrong.
−+Collapse or expand reply by teaspoon
I am asking whether the remembered observation is independent of the account. A drawing made to explain a theory is not an observation just because the drawing is familiar.
−+Collapse or expand reply by brickwork
A diagram can leave everything fixed except the labels. That makes a change of explanation look very tidy. The giraffe never has to become less suited to being an illustration.
−+Collapse or expand reply by nailbrush
The original goes further than the diagram question: it calls the observations alleged. If you defend that sentence, the question is what was observed, not merely how well it was drawn.
−+Collapse or expand reply by marl
Being a useful illustration does not make it an invented animal. Otherwise every very recognizable shape becomes suspicious.