>Popper's recantation --
>
>I wish to re-emphasize a point that keeps getting lost.
That's fine, let me re-emphasize my points:
a) at issue is the testability of natural selection, not evolution
b) Popper changed his mind
What this means is that an argument like "Mr. Falsifiability
himself says that evolution is not falsifiable" must be
put away. First of all, it's just an argument from authority
anyway. Secondly, if one is aware that Popper changed his mind
then it is a dishonest argument from authority.
Now, you are free to argue all you want to about the testability
of evolutionary theory in general or natural selection in
particular. That's fine and dandy. But you should not imply
that Popper agrees with any of this.
Now, I am assuming from your post that you do not consider
evolutionary theory to be testable. I have not read your
book, however, I think I am safe to assume that this
(non-testability) is the only argument that you give against
evolutionary theory, i.e. I assume that you don't actually
try to test it in any way.
WR:=============
>We must reject
>Popper's recantation as inadequate.
You can reject Popper's reasons all you want, but you can't reject
his recantation. To recant or not to recant was Popper's decision
and his alone. It is silly to say you reject it.
WR:=========================
>He did not show that evolutionary
>theory, in any form, is testable. He only barely mentioned testability, and
>even then his reasoning was false (see my book or previous post). This is
>remarkable because testability was the central issue.
>
>Instead Popper wandered around with defining (and mis-defining) "Darwinism",
>and his discussion focused on *explanation*, not testability.
>
>Those happen to be tactics commonly used by evolutionists.
> 1) Confuse readers with various 'definitions' (and mis-definitions)
> of evolutionary theory. When one is challenged, shift to another.
> 2) Shift the issue from testability to explanation (in other words,
> to whether the theory 'explains')
>
>For example, we see those in Brian Harper's discussion below:
>
>>It seems clear to me that Popper is using an extreme form of a theory
>>of NS to illustrate how it can be tested. He finds that the sweeping
>>claim that all of evolution can be accounted for by NS is false.
>>But this is just an exageration for purposes of illustration. I doubt
>>too many Darwinists hold that NS explains all of evolution.
>
>Note how Popper (and Brian) focus on "an extreme" definition of evolutionary
>theory that no one adheres to. Nice ploy, but it's not relevant. It merely
>confuses readers away from the central issue.
>
Note how Walter tries to marginalize [to use Phil's terminology] me by
linking me to Popper and his views. Nice ploy, but it merely confuses
readers away from the central issue: Popper changed his mind.
WR:=====================
>Here are more examples:
>
>>If mechanisms other than NS "may be true in particular cases" then
>>NS is not "strictly universal".
>>....
Surely you won't object to this statement.
BH:============
>>It's hard to say if Popper would agree about NS playing the
>>"central role" in evolutionary theory. I would guess that he
>>would say that this claim is possible but has not yet been
>>firmly established.
>>
Again, your objection eludes me. I'm just guessing. What's the
big deal?
>>If you want to find some individuals who do question the central
>>role of NS you should try Michael Ho, Peter Saunders, Brian
>>Goodwin, Stuart Kauffman and other self-organizationalists.
>>They say rather forcefully that NS plays only a minor role
>>in macroevolution, especially the origin of novelty.
>
Gee, Walter, I thought you would be overjoyed by this.
>Notice the wandering discussion that leads readers ever further from the
>central issue. Brian's discussion focuses on various ways to define
>evolutionary theory; whether they are "firmly established"; whether they
>'explain'; whether they are accepted by evolutionists, etc.
Oh, I'm so embarrassed to be caught talking about science. Shame
on me. Please don't tell my mom. Please.
You talk about explanation as if its a dirty word. One test of a
theory is its ability to explain data. Agree or disagree?
> Lots to confuse
>readers away from testability. Nowhere did Popper, or Brian (or anyone
>else) show testability of their theory.
Walter, I'm just a lowly mechanician. I have no theory of evolution.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================