[asa] Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

No, I am not clairvoyant, Michael. Now you are speaking to the medium and not to the messenger. Please don't advocate for 'those of others' - this is a community of diverse voices (from at least three continents), not a commune! We are all participating here, hopefully in good faith and without cynicism. I welcome your honest thoughts! :-)
 
Yes, it is precisely the issue of 'ancient and well read copies of Popper' in your library that troubles me and dates you. Scholarship has moved on since his works; one must confront Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend (and others newer) in order to get 'up-to-date'. It is enough to note that there are many scientific methods and not 'one science' as was the obsolete view of old. This is crucial to understanding how unified or disunified 'science' is today.

By 'epistemology' Popper involved natural and also non-natural sciences. 'Knowledge' crosses academic barriers and boundaries. Otoh, Michael, you seem to admit 'evolution' as ONLY a legitimately 'natural scientific' concept/theory/paradigm. Thus, you still seem to call science 'one,' when it quite obviously is not!
 
Please prove me wrong if you disagree, Michael. Would you admit that 'evolution' is a legitimate concept/theory/paradigm in human-social sciences and humanities or not?
 
Don't avoid this question if you would respond to this message. This is important because of some of the things that Darwin himself said about humanity in 'Descent of Man' and 'Emotions' that have nothing to do with geology or biology or even ethology. They have to do with humanity and are thus part of reflexive science and not only positive science.
 
Yours in dialogue,
Gregory
 
p.s. Michael, you converse as if I would have nothing to lecture you about. Yet, surely I recognize that you would have many things to lecture me about - it is the challenge to find a balance wherein voices can fairly be expressed. You'd probably 'flip your lid' to imagine the man cupping his hand on his ear just in order to listen to the multi-logue in Moscow I just participated in!!!
 
p.p.s. 'the Stars column' - not sure what this is - we have The Toronto Star in Canada, but I'm not sure of the connotation of your reference...it's about familiarity, isn't it?

--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others
To: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca, "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>, "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Thursday, October 23, 2008, 11:56 PM



A specific answer to a specific question deals with one thing and one thing alone. From that you cannot conclude ignorance or disinterest in other spheres. Perhaps you ought to know that there are ancient and well read copies of Popper on my shelves along with other works you lecture me about. It is amazing how you claim to be clairvoyant about my views (and those of others) but your clairvoyance is as accurate as the Stars column in a newspaper.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gregory Arago
To: Dave Wallace ; Iain Strachan ; Michael Roberts
Cc: ASA
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others

Again, Michael, you are presenting a fraction of the meanings of 'evolution.' It simply cannot be allowed that either geology (Fossil Record) or biology has a hegemony in this conversation. Speaking of 'natural history' as if it could be 'falsified' (again Popper) is disingenuous. We must question the limits of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' (as mechanisms) in a broader sense.
 
There is a larger conversation that you seem unprivy to, Michael. Popper opened up much more than you seem willing to acknowledge, e.g. in raising the topic of 'evolutionary epistemology.' I wonder if you'd be willing to consider the 'changeology' of evolutionism in a different light if you admitted how Darwinism works (and is now obsolete) in anthropological terms. - Gregory
 

--- On Wed, 10/22/08, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Subject: [asa] Re: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy and Others
To: "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>, "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 7:01 PM

That is not the case. What about humans in the Cambrian or trilobites in the
Holocene, of if the peppered moth went another way.

Note that the fossil record gives a historical version of the order of
evolution. If things were in a different order then evolution is caput.

There are many other examples

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Wallace" <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>
To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: [asa] Rejoinder 6D From Timaeus – for Iain Strachan, Jon Tandy
and Others

> With regard to cotton thread and UEM, well said Iain, although I would
> point out that in one of his books Karl Popper regarded Darwinian
> evolution as a UEM since it was difficult to postulate reasonable
> predictions that would falsify it. To my mind especially the RM + NS
> mechanism is problematic in this respect.
>
> Dave W

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now! __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 23 17:29:23 2008