On Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:56:20 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
BH>plopping into the middle of the Popper quote:
>>BH>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.
>>SJ>I suspect that Popper was cleverly getting even with his
>>Darwinist critics, by continuing his criticisms in the guise
>>of a recantation!
BH>Right ;-)
I am glad you agree! ;-) ;-)
BH>Popper:==
>>BH>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.
>>SJ>Yes indeed!
BH>Yes indeed!, and what was wrong was that NS is not a
>tautology no matter what some authorities may have
>said. You need to read more carefully [with all due
>respect and no offense intended and all that other
>nice polite mushy talk ;-)]
Thanks for the "nice polite mushy talk". But I *have* read it
"carefully" and I believe that Popper's "recantation" is no
such thing. I presume that he worded it deliberately so that
Darwinists would *think* it was a "recantation". Darwinist
philosopher Michael Ruse, has acknowledged that Popper's
`recantation' was not genuine:
"Since making this claim, 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 M., "Darwinism Defended," Addison-Wesley:
London, 1982, p133, in Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their
Critics", 1993, p35)
BH>Popper:==
>>BH>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.
>>SJ>That "great Darwinists" like "Fisher", "Haldane", and "Simpson"
>>have trouble formulating the theory of natural selection without
>>making it a tautology, is good prima facie evidence that it *is*
>>a tautology.
BH>Again with all due respect, I believe you should evaluate
>your criteria for evidence.
Fine. Show me why it is not "good prima facie evidence that"
natural selction is a tautology, when "great Darwinists...have
trouble formulating the theory of natural selection without making
it a tautology".
BH>I don't know if you were around awhile back when Del and I
>debated whether Newton's second law was a tautology. I took
>the position that it was not, however, one can make very
>reasonable arguments that it is. I'm sure Del would say
>they're a lot more than just reasonable :-). Formulating
>mechanics so that Newton's second law is not tautological
>is very difficult, with people still arguing over it.
>This doesn't mean it's not possible.
This is a red-herring. I made no claim about "Newton's second
law". We were discussing whether the *Darwinist theory of natural
selection* is a tautology.
And I do not necessarily claim that it is "not possible" to
formulate natural selection non-tautologously. But I do claim
that when it is so formulated it is not an important general
principle of biological change:
"I agree that in principle natural selection can be formulated non-
tautologically, as in Kettlewell's industrial melanism experiment. The
problem is not that the theory is inherently tautological, but rather
that the absence of evidence for the important claims Darwinists
make for natural selection continually tempts them to retreat to the
tautology. In Chapter Four we will see that Gould himself explains
the survival of species as due to their possessing the quality of
"resistance to extinction." In raising the tautology issue I am not
merely taking advantage of a few careless statements. When the
critics are not watching, Darwinists continue to employ natural
selection in its tautological form as the self-evident explanation for
whatever change or lack of change happened to occur. The important
point is that the Darwinists have been tempted continually by the
thought that their theory could be given the status of an a priori truth,
or a logical inevitability, so that it could be known to be true without
the need of empirical confirmation. Their susceptibility to this
temptation is understandable. When the theory is stated as a
hypothesis requiring empirical confirmation, the supporting evidence
is not impressive." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition,
1993, p176)
BH>But suppose Del is right and it is a tautology?
>Would mechanics be any less useful, or any less correct
>for that matter.
I am not interested in "mechanics". I am interested in Natural
Selection!
Do you wish to claim that natural selection "is a tautology"
but is nevertheless "useful" and "correct"?
BH>Popper:==
>>BH>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.
>>SJ>So Popper in this "recantation" admits that the theory of natural
>>selction is not "almost tautological", but is in fact "a tautology"!
>>How he must have laughed as he wrote this!
BH>Please read carefully. Popper is describing his *former* position.
OK. But nowhere does Popper actually say that NS is not a tautology.
That he re-affirms it is only a "research program" confirms that he
still thought it was a tautology.
>>BH>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.
>>SJ>Note "*doctrine* of natural selection"! It's no longer a "theory"!
>>And it still is a "metaphysical research programme"!
BH>Once again, Popper is describing his *former* position.
Agreed. But it remains his present position too. See the present
tense below.
>>BH>I still believe that natural selection works this way as a
>>>research programme.
>>SJ>And again. It is a "research programme".
No comment? Note the *present tense* - "I still believe..." There
would be no need to regard NS as a "research programme" if it was
not tautological.
>>BH>Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about
>>>the testability and logical status of the theory of natural
>>>selection;
>>SJ>Popper is just pulling Darwinist's legs and they don't even
>>notice! He hasn't retracted anything what he said about
>>"the testability and logical status of the theory of natural
>>selection". Indeed, he has confirmed that "really severe tests
>>of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by" (read
>>"impossible"). And as for "logical status" it has slipped
>>further from "almost tautological" to "a tautology".
BH>No, you misread.
No, *you* misread!
>>BH>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
>>SJ>What a wit! Indeed Popper's "recantation" has contribute "to the
>>understanding of the status of natural selection", ie. that it
>>"is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
>>programme"!
BH>How do you arrive at this conclusion when he says the opposite?
Because it is no "recantation" at all!
BH>"Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and
>logical status of the theory of natural selection;" -- Popper
>
>Oh, I forgot, he was only joking.
No. He was being sarcastic. There is no change whatsover between
his former and later views about NS. Even Ruse admits this.
>>BH>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
>>SJ>That "all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular
>>organisms, possibly even from one single organism" is a necessary but
>>not sufficient test of *Darwinism*. *I* am a creationist and I have no
>>problem believing in common descent and nor does Mike Behe. As
>>Denton points out, common descent is "compatible with almost any
>>philosophy of nature", including some forms of creationism:
BH>But the point was Popper's views on macroevolution, whether it
>is science. Popper said "...all terrestrial life has *evolved*
>from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one
>single organism." (emphasis added). The evolution of all terrestrial
>life from one or a few primitive unicellular organisms must
>surely involve some macroevolution along the way :).
Not necessarily. It could have been *creation* "along the way"!
[...]
>>BH>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..."
>>SJ>Since Popper was not a biologist, like the rest of us, he had no
>>alternative but to be "Influenced by what these authorities say".
BH>It seems to me that he did in fact find an alternative.
Keep reading.
>>SJ>What do you expect him to do-sail around the world for several years
>>making his own observations?
>>
>>But as a *philosopher* Popper was well qualified to subject Darwinist
>>reasoning to established canons of logic, and to conclude that not
>>only was the Darwinist theory of natural selection "almost tautological"
>>but in fact it *was* "a tautology"!
BH>No, you are quite wrong about this.
See above. It is *you* who "are quite wrong about this".
BTW you seem to have ignored my evidence based on the fact that Popper
did not modify his claim that Darwinism was a "metaphysical research
program" despite him revising the book in which he made the claim *three*
times over *eight* years.
Here are some excerpts which must be regarded as Popper's last word
on the topic:
"Darwinism...could be described as "almost tautological" (Popper K.,
"Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography", Open Court: La
Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p168).
"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as
metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is metaphysical
because it is not testable." (Popper, 1982, p171)
"...Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but metaphysical. But its
value for science as a metaphysical research programme is very great,
especially if it is admitted that it may be criticized, and improved
upon." (Popper, 1982, p172)
"First, though (2), that is, Darwin's theory of evolution, does not
have sufficient explanatory power to explain the terrestrial
evolution of a great variety of forms of life, it certainly suggests
it, and thereby draws attention to it." (Popper, 1982, p172)
"The theory sketched suggests something like a solution to the
problem of how evolution leads towards what may be called
"higher" forms of life. Darwinism as usually presented fails to
give such an explanation." (Popper, 1982, p176)
Sounds more like `damning with faint praise' to me than a ringing
ensorsement of Darwinism!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------