On Thu, 09 Sep 1999 18:18:11 -0500, efoster@lib.drury.edu wrote:
[...]
>>SJ>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.
[...]
SJ>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????
Well here "I have trouble understanding" Emmanuelle's "logic". What is
to "improve, delete, add", if it is not to "change"?
Even using Emmanuelle's words, the point is that Popper did not "improve,
delete, add" a single word, nor even add a footnote, to his paragraph:
"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: An Intellectual
Autobiography", [1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982,
p168)
EF>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?
As Emmanuelle points out, Popper wrote "The Poverty of
Historicism...long time before *Undended quest*". In fact it was originally
written in *1944*, and was last reprinted in 1976. I can't see from Popper's
bibliography that it was ever revised. But "Undended Quest" *was* revised
in 1976, 1978, and 1983.
Moreover Popper refers to "The Poverty of Historicism" in "Unended
Quest" several times and even has a chapter on it and another book "The
Open Society". Popper mentions in "Undended Quest" *under the heading
"37. Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme" that:
"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..." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest",
1982, p167).
Popper then goes on to say over the page, in the same section, that: "I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory,
but a metaphysical research programme...". Therefore, in the context, what
Popper says in "Unended Quest" about Darwinism in 1982 is, in effect, his
update of what he said about Darwinism in "The Poverty of Historicism" in
1945-1976.
The 1982 edition of "Unended Quest" that I have says it has "New material
in this revised edition". If Popper *really* recanted in 1980 what he
thought about Darwinism, he would have included at least a footnote to his
recantation. Moreover he has a Select Bibliography at the end of the book,
with a number of articles in 1980. His `recantation' is not even listed!
And all this is "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'" (Ruse M.,
"Darwinism Defended," 1983, p133).
EM>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"?
The Listserv used to be called the "Evolution Mail Reflector", and
"Reflectorites" was a term used for the Listserv members as a whole. From
memory it is still called the Evolution Reflector in the Calvin archives. I
am happy to use the term "Group" or "All" if members feel that "Reflectorites"
is an anachronism.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"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: An Intellectual
Autobiography", [1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982,
p168)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------