[betty boop]

....biologists are not as concerned when observations do not fit their theories as physicists are. To the physicists, contradictory evidence points to a problem with the theory itself, i.e. the theory is their main focus. The biologist follows the evidence.

Alamo-Girl, I think this observation is right on the mark. Sometimes I get the impression that biology wants to take a pass from the far more epistemologically rigorous approach of physics, the "queen of the sciences." I read recently that the late Professor Mahr of Harvard has proposed that biology is an "autonomous" science, just as physics is an "autonomous" science -- and apparently, the twain are never to meet. And the reason is, as you point out, that biology is concerned mainly about evidence, and physics mainly about the integrity of theory. For the physicist, if the theory is experimentally falsified, then you know you've got a problem on your hands. For the biologist, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, just keep looking for evidence that does.

At least, that's the impression I get sometimes, these days.

Thank you ever so much for your excellent, perceptive essay/post!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! And again, you and I are exactly on the same wavelength! I just posted the very Mayr quote you were recalling.

Thank you oh so very much for all of your excellent insights, dear sister in Christ!

Wish I could hang around, but I must go help out on construction again this afternoon. But I'll check back this evening.

[b_sharp]

"For the biologist, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, just keep looking for evidence that does. "

Would you care to justify this statement?