[to SJ] > No, you are quite wrong about this.
[Plus many similar comments to the same effect.]
Brian, were you born with this gift for understatement, or have you
cultivated it since? ;-)
I frequently encounter "experts" on Popper's philosophical views among
anti-evolutionists, who always seem to know him better than he knew
himself, as well as knowing what he secretly believed that is not recorded
in print. The same quotes are always offered from the same limited sources.
Popper frequently discussed "Darwinism" (and Darwin), "natural selection",
"tautology", "situational logic", "metaphysical research programmes", and
"evolution" (at various levels) in his many books. Regarding "metaphysical
research programmes", alone, I have never encountered one of these
"experts" who could offer any discussion on what Popper meant by the term
(beyond "he said it's METAPHYSICAL!!!!!"). Popper discusses it directly
only a couple of pages before the famous (notorious?) "tautology" claim,
where he also refers the reader to a more complete discussion in another of
his books. There, he claims that "metaphysical research programmes" are
essential to the development of science, and discusses 10 such programmes
important in the history of physics. Although he disagrees with Thomas
Kuhn on the existence of "normal science", "metaphysical research
programme" equates closely with Kuhn's "paradigm".
The other terms are also explained in other books, which are very
instructive in recognizing that Popper had his own theory of the evolution
of human knowledge - through "trial and error elimination" - that he often
imposed on biological evolution in order to compare the two. See, for
example, his _Human Knowledge: an evolutionary approach_. His "tautology"
claim is that natural selection is self-evidently true. Not quite the same
as the conclusion "meaningless". I have never seen in his many books and
articles any claim that evolution as such is not science. Yet the
"experts" usually get around to expanding a discussion about natural
selection, *specifically*, to encompass macroevolution. I would have to see
an actual reference to believe he ever made any claims to this.
The "experts" claim that Popper said that historical studies are not within
the realm of science. Popper himself responded to one such claim by
stating that it wasn't true. There is some legitimate confusion possible
here, since he made claims in _The Poverty of Historicism_ that could be
taken to support what was said. This, however, relates to discussion of a
"law of evolution", such as is not supported by anyone I know of, as a
direct corollary to his criticisms of Toynbee's claims regarding "theories"
of human history. The issue revolves around determinism as a requirement
of a theory (for prediction purposes). If theories must be deterministic
(outcome prediction), then theories of evolution are not scientific. I
know of no one who makes *scientific* future claims about evolution
(without qualification), and it therefore denies what no scientist
believes.
Don Frack
dcfrack@sowest.net
[Gone on a geology field trip for a week. I'll be interested to see how,
or if, this discussion progresses.]