On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:37:32 -0500, efoster@lib.drury.edu wrote:
[...]
>>SB>Creationists love Popper. At least they did for a while. He later
>>>realized his mistake and recanted in 1978. That, of course, is never
>>>quoted.
>GM>Do you have a reference for this? Or more importantly what is the
>>quotation?
EF>Karl Popper's recantation:
As I have previously pointed out in a debate with Brian Harper on the
Reflector in 1998, even though Popper uses the word "recantation" it is
clear that Popper never retracted his core claim that "Darwinism is not a
testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme":
"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.R., "Unended Quest, 1982, p168).
Popper came under great pressure from the Darwinists to recant:
"What happened to change this situation is that Popper's comment received
a great deal of publicity, and creationists and other unfriendly critics began
citing it to support their contention that Darwinism is not really a scientific
theory. The Darwinists themselves became aware of a dangerous situation,
and thereafter critics raising the tautology claim were firmly told that they
were simply demonstrating their inability to understand Darwinism. As we
shall see in later chapters, however, in practice natural selection continues
to be employed in its tautological formulation." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", 1993, p22)
Popper first made his claim in *1974*, and issued his `recantation' in 1980,
yet the edition of Unended Quest (Popper's "Intellectual Autobiography") I
was quoting from was revised in *1982* after previous revisions in 1976
and 1978. If an author allows words to stand despite intense criticism
through *three* editions over the space of 8 years, then it is safe to say he
stands by them!
Even Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse, in discussing the above
statement by Popper, says:
"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. If
one relies heavily on natural selection and sexual selection, simultaneously
downplaying drift, which of course is what the neo-Darwinian does do,
then Popper feels that one has a nonfalsifiable theory." (Ruse M.,
"Darwinism Defended", 1983, p133).
Darwinists have seized on Popper's word "recantation" and have not
taken notice of what he actually said.
My interpretation of this, based on the evidence of what Popper actually
said and why he said it, is that Popper was actually retaliating against
the Darwinists, who had publicly criticised him for , by pretending to recant,
but not really doing so.
EF>"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.
Note that in this so-called "recantation" Popper `twists the knife' by
pointing out that "even some great Darwinists" have admitted that "the
theory of natural selection" "is a tautology".
To make it quite clear what he means by "tautology", he gives an example
(omitted by Emmanuelle):
"A tautology like `All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it
any explanatory power.'" (Popper K., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp339-355. Quote posted by Brian Harper.)
Thus Popper makes it clear that the Darwian theory: a) is a "tautology"; b)
is not "testable" and c) has no "explanatory power"! Not bad for a
`recantation'!
EP>... I mention this because I too belong among the culprits."
Note the *present tense*: "I too *belong* among the culprits". Popper *still*
regards the Darwinian "theory of natural selection" as "a tautology...
which "is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power."
Popper continues (omitted by Emmanuelle):
"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.
Yes indeed! More `twisting the knife'. One can almost hear Popper
cackling with glee as he shafted the Darwinists, all the while pretending to
be recanting to them!
"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.".
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.
EF>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).
So Popper in his `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!
EF>and yet of great scientific interest.
And here Popper damns the theory with faint praise! *Of course*
the Darwinian "theory of natural selection" is "of great scientific
interest".
EF>My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most
>successful metaphysical research programme...
Note "the *doctrine* of natural selection"! And more damning it
with faint praise as "a most successful metaphysical research
programme..."
Popper continues (omitted by Emmanuelle):
"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..."
So, far from recanting, here Popper reaffirm his earlier "conclusion that
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research
programme" which is only "a possible framework for testable scientific
theories." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest, 1982, p168).
EF>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. ...
Popper's `change of mind' and "recantation" turns out to be cold comfort
for the Darwinists.
Continuing with Popper (omitted by Emmanuelle):
"My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the
status of natural selection."
Here Popper is being sarcastic! His contribution "to the understanding of
the status of natural selection" is that, either: (a) as a general theory of
evolution it is a "a tautology", as opposed to Popper's previous view that it
was "almost tautological";
EF>The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that
>it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns
>out to be not strictly universally true.
Or, b) Natural selection can be formulated so it is not a tautology, but then
it is relatively unimportant, for example:
"When he considers the scientific status of Darwinism, Patterson writes
that the theory can be presented in the form of a deductive argument, for
example:
1. All organisms must reproduce; 2. All organisms exhibit hereditary
variations; 3. Hereditary variations differ in their effect on reproduction; 4.
Therefore variations with favorable effects on reproduction will succeed,
those with unfavorable effects will fail, and organisms will change.
Patterson observes that the theorem establishes only that some natural
selection will occur, not that it is a general explanation for evolution.
Actually, the theorem does not even establish that organisms will change.
The range of hereditary variations may be narrow and the variations which
survive may be just favorable enough to keep the species as it is." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, pp23-24)
EF>There seem to be exceptions, as
>with so many biological theories; and considering the random character
>of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of
>exceptions is not surprising." [Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the
>Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355; quotations are
>from pp. 344-346.
Here are some more quotes from other authors citing the same article by
Popper:
"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
phenomenon 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. (Popper K.R., 1978, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of
Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, No. 3, p339-355, in ReMine W.J., "The Biotic
Message", 1993, pp485-486).
And:
"In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection
would assert that all organisms ... have evolved as the result of natural
selection; ... If formulated in this sweeping way, the theory is not only
refutable, but actually refuted. For not all organs serve a useful purpose: as
Darwin himself points out, there are organs like the tail of the peacock, and
behavioural programmes like the peacock's display of his tail, which cannot
be explained by their utility, and therefore not by natural selection. Darwin
explained them by the preference of the other sex, that is by sexual
selection..It seems far preferable to admit that not everything that evolves
is useful, though it is astonishing how many things are; ... In other words it
seems to me that like so many theories in biology, evolution by natural
selection is not strictly universal, though it seems to hold for a vast number
of important cases. (Popper, 1978, pp339-355, in ReMine W.J., 1993,
p486)
So if this is Popper's idea of a "recantation", I would hate to see him
issuing a *refutation*!
PS:
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:55:33 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>...In addition to that, I have been so annoyed
>over the years by creationist selective quoting (like Stephens, remember?
What "selective quoting" exactly is that? I have been accused of a lot of
things over the years on this Reflector, but "selective quoting" is not one of
them.
AFAIK not even Susan has accused me of "selective quoting" although I
don't always read all of her posts, so she might have. If that is the case, I
would invite her to repost the relevant extracts from the message(s) in which
she accused me of "selective quoting", and why.
Indeeed, I have here filled the material between the ellipses in Emmanuelle's
quotes. I wonder if Susan will add my fill-ins to her files, or will she be
"selective" and only keep those things she agrees with? Indeed, I wonder if
Susan will accuse Emmanuelle of "selective quoting"? Or is it only
"*creationist* selective quoting" that Susan objects to?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses
incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious
interpretations." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence
for a New Theory of Transformation", Academic Press: New York NY,
1977, p6)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------