On Fri, 10 Nov 1995 11:22:02 -0600 you wrote:
WR>Popper's recantation --
>I wish to re-emphasize a point that keeps getting lost. We must
>reject Popper's recantation as inadequate. He did not show that
>evolutionary theory, in any form, is testable. He only barely
>mentioned testability, and even then his reasoning was false (see my
>book or previous post). This is remarkable because testability was
>the central issue.
[...]
WR>Notice the wandering discussion that leads readers ever further
>from the central issue. Brian's discussion focuses on various ways
>to define evolutionary theory; whether they are "firmly established";
>whether they 'explain'; whether they are accepted by evolutionists,
>etc. Lots to confuse readers away from testability. Nowhere did
>Popper, or Brian (or anyone else) show testability of their theory.
I support Walter in this. Popper's recantation was inadequate. He
is/was a top philosopher to whom words were *everything*. One cannot
accept that he lighly said in his autobiography:
`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...Darwinism is not a
scientific theory but metaphysical."
(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)
Nothing he later wrote that I have seen really retracted these words.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------