Can evolutionary biologists be emotionally attached to their theories?

Question

If yes, then how would this affect their research?

If no, tell me HOW we KNOW that they are not emotionally attached to their theories.

Answer 1

Let me guess - you didn't get the right answer the first time you asked?

Answer 2

All scientists get "emotionally attached" to their theories to a degree. However, when they present their data and theories (in papers, or as a talk at a conference) *other* scientists deconstruct the theories and decide whether *they* think they are credible or not. This is called "peer review" and is the method by which a scientific consensus is reached: essentially, the theories need to be supported by many different scientists before they can be considered credible. Since it requires multiple people to support the idea, any emotional attachment goes out the window in the face of objectivity.

However, if you are asking why evolutionists argue for evolution instead of creationism - well, that's not blind "emotional attachment", because evolution is not any one scientist's theory any more: it is a consensus held by 95% of all scientists across all disciplines, and that has been considered the best model for over 100 years now. All the evolutionists are doing here is trying to explain why contrary ideas are not scientifically supported.

It's a bit like the exasperation you would feel if (for example) someone insisted that Canada was actually part of the USA, and kept insisting it was the case, no matter how you tried to tell them their idea was wrong.

Answer 3

We can't KNOW that they aren't emotionally attached to their theories, but in the end, it's moot, because science relies on the work of the whole community, rather than one scientist.

There's a divide between the science you see reported on TV/newspapers and the scientific journals. TV news is quick to say that "Scientists have proven [blank]." If you read an actual journal paper, a scientist will almost never use the word "prove." They will say "The evidence suggests that [blank]." That way, there is less of an attachment to their findings. If further research contradicts theirs, it's easier to accept that the original data was incomplete.

A key point is transparency. Data is presented in journals, and conclusions are analyzed and questioned. It is put on display so people can objectively come to their own conclusions, which may or may not agree with those of the publishing scientist. If the research is not transparent (i.e. if a scientist says that he/she has data or 'proof' but no one else can look at it) it is (and must be) discounted entirely. This is why a good deal of ID or creationist research isn't taken seriously. So much of the research takes place is under sloppy conditions, or the researchers won't let anyone see the first-hand data.

On the topic of evolution, let's compare attachment to ideas:

Science: Democratic community that analyzes evidence, comes up with conclusions and explanations that incorporate new data. If contradictory evidence comes up, then it is incorporated and theories revised. The search for truth continues, and no on loses their job (even if evolution were shown to be false, there's obviously data there showing *something,* and studies would be altered, but would continue in some form).

Religion: Impenetrable oligarchy, with decisions made by a small group of old men. Power is fear-based ("Don't question what I say or you're soul will be tormented for eternity"). Ideas are based on interpretations of a repeatedly-translated ancient text. If part is shown to be untrue, then entire power base is shaken, support and (potentially) job are lost.

Most ID supporters that I have interacted with fall into either the religion category (unfounded and unsupported belief) or into a rebellious category ("lots of people support evolution, so I'm gonna argue with them").

Science is not a monolithic entity. It's a community of individual researchers that disagree with each other as much as they hold onto their own theories. It is democratic in the truest sense, where valid data (obtained under transparent conditions, with good controls) is looked at objectively. Science is all about supporting your claims with data and then questioning the conclusions. Those who cannot take having their ideas questioned usually end up either on the fringe of science or leaving alltogether.

Answer 4

Well, there are subtle clues if you know how to recognize them. They may coddle their theories or go for long walks with them. Some treat the theories like a member of the family or take their theories to bed with them. Eventually, given enough time, these scientists may even start to resemble their theories.

Seriously, think of the ridiculousness of your question. You are asking how you can tell if a scientist is emotionally attached to a theory? A theory that is tested, scrutinized, and replicated or falsified by other scientists? Unless you develop amazing mind reading powers, you'll just have to accept that the scientific method actually works, and that only the theories supported by evidence hold up. Emotional investments do not support a theory in the long-run.

Answer 5

Everyone is attached to their theories. We spend our whole lives doing this stuff. Time away from family and friends. Of course you get emotional when somebody with absolutely no data comes along and says we were created by a giant spaghetti monster because you can't prove that it's not true.

In all aspects of people get emotional. That's why we have peer review. It isn't true till it's gone through all kinds of scrutiny and even then it's simply the truth based on the current technology available used to understand it.

Answer 6

Certainly, everyone gets attached to their theories. Usually it results in the scientist disregarding or ignoring evidence that would otherwise contradict their theories. When a person refuses to acknowledge contrary information to their theory, or does not give a rational explanation for the data within the scope of their theory, they are going beyond the realm of 'scientific thought'.

Answer 7

No more and no less than any other scientists are attached to their theories.

And I say that even recognizing that you do not clarify what you mean by "their theories." Do you mean each scientist's emotional attachment to his or her *own* theories? Or do you mean an emotional attachment to the main theories embraced by the consensus of their colleagues.

Either way, the answer is the same ... no more and no less than any other branch of science.

Answer 8

Not nearly as much as creationists are attached to their superstitions.