Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 119–124 | Cite as

On the Hypothetico-Deductive Nature of Science—Darwin’s Finches

  • Anton E. Lawson
Article

Abstract

Allchin (2006) has misinterpreted a classic case of hypothetico-deductive (HD) science in terms of his preferred let’s-gather-some-data-and-see-what-emerges’ view. The misrepresentation concerns the research program of Peter and Rosemary Grant on Darwin’s finches. The present essay argues that the Grants’ research is HD in nature and includes a statement by Peter Grant to that effect.

Keywords

Beak Size Galapagos Island Explicit Hypothesis Feeding Niche Missing Species 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon research partially supported by the National Science Foundation under award No. EHR 0412537. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I wish to thank John Alcock for helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this essay.

References

  1. Allchin D (2006) Lawson’s Shoehorn—Reprise. Sci & Educ 15:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chown M (2001) The magic furnace: the search for the origin of atoms. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Grant PR (1986) Ecology and evolution of Darwin’s finches. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Grant BR, Grant PR (1989) Evolutionary dynamics of a natural population: the large cactus finch of the Galapagos. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Grant PR, Grant BR (2002) Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches. Science 296:707–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hershey DR (2003) Misconceptions about Helmont’s willow experiment. Plant Sci Bull 49:78–84Google Scholar
  7. Hershey DR (2006) Pseudohistory and pseudoscience: corrections to Allchin’s historical, conceptual and educational claims. Sci & Educ 15:121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lawson AE (2002) What does Galileo’s discovery of Jupiter’s Moons tell us about the process of scientific discovery? Sci & Educ 11(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawson AE (2003) Allchin’s Shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Sci & Educ 12(3):331–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lawson AE (2004a) T. rex, the crater of doom, and the nature of scientific discovery. Sci & Educ 13(3):155–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawson AE (2004b) A reply to Allchin’s pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Sci & Educ 13(6):599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawson AE (2005) William Harvey, predicting capillaries, and the nature of science—one more time. Am Biol Teach 67(4):202–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lawson AE (2006) Allchin’s errors and misrepresentations and the HD nature of science. Sci Educ 90(2):289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Weiner J (1994) The beak of the finch. Alfred Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Westerland J, Fairbanks D (2004) Gregor Mendel and ‘myth-conceptions’. Sci Educ 88:754–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wivagg D, Allchin D (2002) The dogma of ‘the’ scientific method. Am Biol Teach 64(9):645–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology, College of Liberal Arts and SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations