[...]
>
>>SJ>Indeed, according to Popper (and Patterson?), macroevolution is
>>>not even science, but is really history:
>
>BH>Where has Popper said that macroevolution is not science?
>>
>>[deleted Patterson quote]
>
>Patterson doesn't given any references, but I found this is by
>Lewontin:
>
>"Popper himself, in The Poverty of Historicism, singles out
>evolutionary theory for an attack. "Can there be a law of
>evolution?" "No, the search for the law of the 'unvarying order' in
>evolution cannot possibly fall within the scope of scientific
>method...". By this, Popper means only that the history of living
>organisms and their transformations on Earth -are a specific
>sequence of unique events, no different from, say, the history of
>England. Since it is a unique sequence, no generalities can be
>constructed about it." (Lewontin R.C., "Testing the Theory of
>Natural Selection", review of Creed R., ed., "Ecological Genetics
>and Evolution", Blackwell: Oxford, 1971, Nature, Vol. 236, March
>24, 1972, p181).
>
I was really amazed by the last sentence of the above quote.
No generalities can be constructed? Really? But Lewontin
goes on to say "But this aspect of the Popperian objection
to biology's most comprehensive system of knowledge is
easy to cope with, ...".
>SJ>In his autobiography Popper says of "The Poverty of Historicism":
>
>"The Poverty of Historicism contains my first brief attempt to deal
>with some epistemological questions connected with the theory of
>evolution. I continued to work on such problems, and I was greatly
>encouraged when I later found that I had come to results very similar
>to some of Schrodinger's" (Popper K., "Unended Quest: An
>Intellectual Autobiography", 1976, revised edition, London: Open
>Court: London, 1982 reprint, p167).
>
>It is on the next page of "Unended Quest" that Popper's most
>quoted words occur:
>
>"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
>scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible
>framework for testable scientific theories." (Popper K., "Unended
>Quest", 1982 reprint, p168).
>
Hopefully whoever quotes this is aware that Popper changed
his mind.
========begin Popper quote=======
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of
today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural
selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity,
by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes
in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an
immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that
it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim,
and very far from being established. All scientific theories
are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed
many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of
modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory
of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved
from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even
from one single organism.
However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the
theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is
difficult to test. There are some tests, even some
experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous
phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe
natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were.
Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural
selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of
otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult
to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some
great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology
like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable;
nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most
surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary
Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way
that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that
leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H.
Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in
other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to
be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place
to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since
the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero,
something must be wrong here.
Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great
Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord
Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits.
Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past
described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried
to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable
(as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My
solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most
successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed
problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect
of an acceptable solution of these problems.
I still believe that natural selection works this way as a
research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about
the testability and logical status of the theory of natural
selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a
recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little
to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
=======end quote=========
With respect to the claim that macroevolution is not science
(according to Popper), consider the following sentence from
the above quote:
#"The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been
#well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which
#says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few
#primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one
#single organism." -- Popper
It is also instructive to note why Popper came to his
former view that natural selection was "almost tautological".
He was "Influenced by what these authorities say..."
[...]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal