On Mon, 23 Oct 1995 11:59:03 -0400 you wrote:
[...]
BH>First, it was natural selection (not evolution) that Popper
originally
>claimed was a tautology and thus not falsifiable. The reason I say
>"originally" is that Popper later recanted this view
[...]
BH>"... 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. 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.
>
>I still believe that natural selection works this way as
>a research programme. Nevertheless, 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. 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.
BH>I found Popper's recantment a little surprising. I had heard so
much about
>it on talk.origins that I was really expecting something more forceful...
>Consider also that the paper was originally presented as the first Darwin
>Lecture at Darwin College, Cambridge.
Agreed. It could be argued that Popper's "recantation" was just a sop
to
the Darwinists like Halstead who criticised him publicly. This is what
Popper originally wrote in his autobiography "Unended Quest":
`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. It suggests the existence
of a mechanism of adaptation and it allows us even to study in detail
the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does
all
that.
This is of course the reason why Darwinism has been almost universally
accepted. Its theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that
was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of
failure,
for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been
reached.
Now to the degree that Darwinism creates the same impression, it is
not
so very much better than the theistic view of adaptation: it is
therefore important to show that 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 K., "Unended Quest", Fontana, Glasgow, 1976, in Sunderland
L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems", Master Book
Publishers: El Cajon CA, Revised Edition 1988, p29)
Note that Popper explicitly said it was *Darwinism* that was
untestable. He repeated "Darwinism" four times. Popper does not
resile from what he wrote above. All he actually says in his
"recantation" is:
"Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and
logical status of the theory of natural selection."
The exact extent of this change of mind appeared in the 21 August
1980 issue of New Scientist, where Popper replied:
"Some people think that I have denied scientific character to the
historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the
evolution of life on Earth; or the history of literature, or of
technology, or of science.
This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other
historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their
hypotheses can in many cases be tested.
It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences
are untestable because they describe unique events. However, the
description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from
them testable predictions or retrodictions."
(Popper K., New Scientist, 21 August 1980, in Sunderland, p29).
The above seems pretty weak. "Darwinism" is not mentioned at
all. The "historical sciences" (including Darwinism?) only "have...
scientific character" and "their hypotheses" can only "in many cases
be tested."
Nowehere does Popper actually deny his earlier claim that:
"...Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
research programme-a possible framework for testable scientific
theories...Darwinism is not a scientific theory but metaphysical."
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------