I think Walter's resort to _ad hominem_ and gross distortions is
obvious enough. More subtle is his repeated attempts to tie
me to Popper and his views, attempts to get me to defend NS
and its testability. Since we are discussing Popper and his
recantation, my views about evolution and NS are irrelevant.
For sake of clarity, let me briefly say that I consider
NS to be primarily stabilizing as opposed to being creative,
IOW I don't feel NS accounts for macroevolution.
Walter wrote:
>*** More to-and-fro' (with Brian Harper) about Popper's recantation --
[...]
BH:============================
>> 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.
>
WR:=============================================
>It is Brian (and other evolutionists) who are making an argument from
>authority. In practice they do not simply say "Popper changed his mind".
>They're not that coy. In practice they say "Mr. Testability himself now
>says that evolution is testable" -- an argument from authority.
>
I have never used Popper's recantation as an argument from authority.
WR:====================
>Moreover, if you are aware -- as you now are -- that Popper's recantation
>used faulty reasoning, then it is dishonest to blindly cite his recantation
>for others.
>
I'm aware of no such thing. Also, I posted what Popper actually
wrote so people could judge for themselves, hardly a blind citation.
Funny that you would include such blatant mis-representations
in a paragraph about dishonesty.
[...]
WR:=========================
>Moreover, I am not the only one who doubts Popper's recantation. Let me
>cite evolutionist Micheal Ruse's reaction to it:
>
> "[Since Popper made his original charges against natural selection]
> Popper himself has modified his position somewhat;
> ***but disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really
> believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.***"
> (Ruse, 1982, p 133, my emphasis)
>
The first part of this quote is essentially what I have said several
times. I was surprised at the lack of forcefullness in Popper's
recantation, that he changed his mind from not testable to difficult
to test. However, Ruse's suspicions are just that, suspicions.
[...]
>>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.
>
>There goes Brian again, arguing from authority. I reject Popper's
>recantation, so does Micheal Ruse, and so should you once you understand
>it's faulty reasoning.
>
Walter, you missed the point entirely. Go back and read what I wrote
again. My statement "You can reject Popper's reasons all you want"
is hardly consistant with an argument from authority.
WR:==============
>What is the ultimate way to escape the charge of untestability?
>Answer:
>
>>Walter, I'm just a lowly mechanician. I have no theory of evolution.
>
>Nice dodge: 'Who me? What theory of evolution?'
>
Your quotation is not what I said, nor does it even resemble what I
said. Is this an example of how you quote evolutionists in your
book?
Really, Walter, is your position so weak that it requires distortions
and _ad hominem_ to defend it?
I found your reply disgusting. This will most likely be
my last reply to you.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================