> EF>Since Popper clearly says that there are available tests for this theory
> >(natural selection), showing that this theory is indeed testable, I
> >don't see how Stephen can interpret the whole paper the way he does.
>
> Apart from the fact that Popper's actual words do not amount to a
> `recantation', and Darwinist philosopher Ruse admits that "Popper...even now
> does not really believe that Darwinism...is genuinely falsifiable";
> Emmanuelle (and others) overlook one *crushing* fact, which I repeat:
>
> "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!"
>
> It is simply *inconceivable* that a *philosopher* of Popper's standing,
> whose whole stock-in-trade is *words* and their precise usage, in an issue
> in which he was *vitally* aware (having been publicly criticised for it by the
> Darwinists for over a decade), should revise other parts of his *intellectual
> autobiography* two years *after* his `recantation', but leave *unchanged*,
> without even a footnote, his original *1974* claim that: "Darwinism is not a
> testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme", if he
> didn't still believe that it was.
>
> Steve
I must admit I have trouble understanding your logic. Why would Popper
change anything in an *autobiography*? He may improve, delete, add (as
in the 1992 edition), details, but change????
By the same token, he never changed what he wrote in *The Poverty of
Historicism* long time before *Undended quest*: "I see in modern
Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts". Do you
think he was still standing by those words in 1994?
Since I'm rather new on this mailing ling and since, on top of that, I
am a damned foreigner :-) may I ask why you start your mails by
"Reflectorites"?
regards
Emmanuelle