WE>Given what Popper said, the sounds coming from Australia are best
WE>classified as gnat straining and camel swallowing.
WE>I'm with Harper on this one.
SJ>Expression of brotherly evolutionist solidarity noted! Now
SJ>how about *you* actually *answering* the specific points I
SJ>made?
I think that "gnat-straining and camel-swallowing" plus reading
what Popper wrote is a sufficient answer. The indicated
'difficulty' below demonstrates this.
SJ>In particular, if Popper really recanted, how come he left
SJ>his claim that Darwinism was an untestable metaphysical
SJ>research program in his autobiography through *three* editions
SJ>over *eight* years?
Is Stephen suggesting that every mistake that someone makes in
their life be expunged at the next available edition of their
autobiography? It's that sort of practice that gives
autobiographies a bad name, and I'm glad to hear that Popper
didn't indulge in sweeping-under-the-rug antics.
But we may not even have to infer integrity on Popper's part. ;-)
I looked back at Stephen's message of March 9, and it quoted
the 1982 *reprint* of "Unended Quest". A reprint doesn't imply
any involvement from the author, simply the publisher's
decision to print more copies. Even if Stephen misstated that,
and we really do have a series of revised editions, my comment
on the purpose of an autobiography still applies.
a lot of special pleading in the gnats-and-camels tradition.
Interestingly enough, not accepting that Popper's recantation
was a recantation is a trait Stephen shares with Laurie
Appleton.
Wesley