Brian Harper writes:
>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.
Brian's earlier post quoted only a fraction of Popper's recantation. So our
readers here had no way of knowing the truth -- that Popper scarsely even
mentioned testability in the entire article. Popper's omission is stunning.
It has to draw comment. Popper was supposedly recanting on the testability
issue, but he hardly mentioned testability! Almost all of his discussion
is, lamentably, the usual lengthy evolutionary run-around, about definitions
and explanations -- every which thing *except* testability. This is
remarkable because:
1) Popper spends most of his time slicing and dicing
"Darwinism" various ways and constrasting how these
various versions ***explain*** the data. The focus is on
***explanation*** yet he passes this off as though it were
a test - which it isn't.
2) That is especially remarkable since Popper was a renowned
expert on testability, and his glaring mis-application of the
concept is far beneath his talents. (More on this below.)
Popper's SOLE example of testability was the famous industrial melanism
case. This is remarkable because:
1) Popper was just as aware of that case BEFORE he made
his original denunciation of Darwinism. There was
nothing new about the case that could have caused him
to recant. And he cited none. Are we to believe he recanted
because of a sudden realization that he had overlooked
industrial melanism?
2) The industrial melanism case involves a special definition
of fitness for a special case (dark-colored moths against the
dark soot-stained trees of the industrial revolution).
It does not test natural selection.
Evolutionists typically use a special definition whenever they
argue that natural selection is testable. It's a common ploy, and
Popper fell for it.
In Popper's defense I add this. The notion that "natural selection is
testable science" is the most intricately crafted illusion in the history of
science. It is like a three-shell game at the carnival, only with many more
levels of evasion, and it thrives on confusion. It is understandable that
Popper would be taken in by the pressure and the onslaught of confusion he
received -- and that confusion is displayed in his article.
******
>I was surprised at the lack of forcefullness in Popper's
>recantation, that he changed his mind from not testable to difficult
>to test.
Brian correctly saw Popper's lack of forcefulness on the matter. Popper's
statement was flimsy, half-hearted, and unconvincing -- both as to his own
personal position, and to the technical issues. Even evolutionist Micheal
Ruse doubts Popper's recantation.
******
>I have never used Popper's recantation as an argument from authority.
Yes and no. Plenty of evolutionists do use Popper's recantation as an
argument from authority, like this: "Mr. Testability himself now says that
evolution is testable". Brian, to his credit, has been more careful than
that. But it's still an argument from authority ... and getting moreso with
each post. Brian cares not about the undeniable inadequacies of Popper's
statements. He just keeps repeating, "Popper recanted! Popper recanted!"
and dodging the issue of testability. Use Popper to lend an air of
legitimacy to evolutionary theory, then skip town about defending it -- It's
an argument from authority.
********************************************************************
Most of Brian's post complains about being mistreated. I'll respond here,
but many readers may want to skip the whole mess, and I encourage them to.
>I think Walter's resort to _ad hominem_ and gross distortions is
>obvious enough.
Get a hold on things. There was no personal attack. I just point out the
truth -- that Popper didn't show Darwinism is testable -- neither did Brian
-- (neither has anyone else). I happen to admire Popper, but his
"recantation" made the classic mistakes that evolutionists make, (the same
mistakes that Brian repeats), and there is no personal attack in pointing
that out.
What are those mistakes? In a nutshell, they dodge the testability issue,
they divert the discussion into other matters.
>More subtle is his repeated attempts to tie me to Popper and his
>views, attempts to get me to defend NS and its testability.
I value the reader's time, so I don't beat around the bush. I stick to the
main points, and skip the obvious. And it's OBVIOUS to everyone that Popper
and Brian are different people. Need I point that out? Need I slice and
dice the various differences in their positions? It's a waste of time, just
another run-around. Brian is reading some kind of personal attack into
that, but it's not there.
>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.
For sake of clarity, Brian just offered the usual run-around that completely
dodges the testability issue.
******
>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 claims my post mis-quoted and distorted him. He is completely
mistaken -- I quoted him accurately and exhaustively. Then I appropriately
lampooned his position. It is OBVIOUSLY a lampoon of his position. And to
make that point extra clear I didn't use quote marks (" ").
It is all fair, funny, and accurate.
Evolutionists take numerous, diverse, conflicting attempts at defending
natural selection as science. Everything from double standards, to verbose
word games, to attacking the philosophy of science itself. Evolutionists
have demonstrated enormous creativity. And my book documents the whole sad
sorry history.
Brian takes the ultimate dodge on the testability issue. He comes on citing
Popper's authority, and ducks out the back door with the final words "I have
no theory of evolution".
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128