>As I have previously pointed out in a debate with Brian Harper on the
>Reflector in 1998, even though Popper uses the word "recantation" it is
>clear that Popper never retracted his core claim that "Darwinism is not a
>testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme":
Could someone clarify what this is all about? Surely Popper was not
talking about evolution in the sense of a genealogical chain of organisms
changing over time; that is a physical fact (true or false), which could be
observed if one had a time machine, or if one could find satisfactory
historical evidence (such as if light waves from earth had been somehow
recorded somewhere). The difficulty of making the observation has nothing
to do with whether the proposition is metaphysical and thus unverifiable
in principle.
So, is the remaining question whether natural selection and mutation are
the driving mechanisms behind the phenomena? If so, it would seem that
it boils down to Humean questioning of causality in general, which is fine,
if that is made clear.
Personally, I think if Popper were worth a damn, he'd be appreciated by
the average intelligent person. But he's not. He is sort of a philosopher's
philosopher, a meta-philosopher, given to appealing yet nonsensical
expressions like 'metaphysical research programme.'
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com