Posted on 03/11/2003 3:01:59 PM PST by Remedy
You appear to imply that "predictions" are somewhow inadequate as a basis of testing a theory, though you provide no supporting evidence for this implication. As per Popper, predictions (which includes retrodictions) ARE the basis for ALL falsifications.
The question is why did he recant? Was it for pure scientific reasons?
As opposed to....... ??????? Do you have some sort of evidence his reasons for revising his earlier opinion on the scientificness of the Theory of Evolution were unscientifically motivated?
However he lumps TOE in with historical sciences such as literature. What he does not do is release TOE from providing predictions. As that is the only way to test historical sciences.
Once again: predictions form the basis for falsification of ALL scientific theories, not just historical sciences.
So again the ball is in your court. As I have asked before, what predictions has TOE provided?
I already stated the most well-known example (as best I recall it): the ToE predicts we should find fossils in the geologic column in a sequence that is consistent with the evolutionary sequence. Hence, finding mammalian fossils in Pre-Cambrian strata would pretty much falsify it, just as the observation of the rate of precession of Mercury falsified Newton's Theory of Gravitation. There have been entire threads on FR devoted to the topic of evolutionary predictions (retrodictions typically) and how they could be potential falsifications. If you desire further examples, you should consult someone who is schooled in the biological sciences; it's not my cup of tea.
Returning to Popper's revision of his views on the scientific nature of Evolution; here's a letter he wrote on the topic:
Unended quest, an intellectual autobiography Unended quest: an intellectual autobiography Popper John Little darwinism karl popper New Scientist theory of evolution teoria da evolução teoria da evolucao Karl R. Popper karl r. popper
Letter on Evolution
[A reply to Halstead, 1980]
Karl [R.] Popper
Published:
POPPER, Karl, 1980. Evolution. New Scientist 87(1215):611.
“In the 17 July issue of New Scientist (p. 215) you published an article under the title “Popper: good philosophy, bad science?” by Dr Beverly Halstead. This article, it appears had two purposes:
Reference
1. To defend the scientific character of the theory of evolution, and of palaeontology. I fully support this purpose, and this letter will be almost exclusively devoted to the defence of the theory of evolution.
2. To attack me.
As to (2), I find this uninteresting and I shall not waste your space and my time in defending myself against what are in my opinion hardly excusable misunderstandings. and wild speculations about my motives and their alleged history.
Returning to (1), it does appear from your article (provided its quotation from Colin Patterson’s book – which I do not know – is not as misleading as your quotations from my book) that some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, 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.
Karl Popper Penn”
HALSTEAD, Beverly, 1980. Popper: good philosophy, bad science? New Scientist 87(1210):215-217.
This page:
POPPER, Karl, 2000. [Letter on] Evolution. [A reply to Halstead, 1980]. Available on the internet: http://www.geocities.com/geocities/9468/popper80.htm. 14 April 2000 (publication). First published: New Scientist 87(1215):611, 21 Aug. 1980.
Science ciencia filosofia da ciencia philosophy of science historia da ciencia Beverly Halstead Karl Popper Popper, Karl Karl R. Popper
Visit:
1. New Scientist Magazine, UK, on net:
http://www.newscientist.com/
2. Karl Popper Web:
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/
Here are some more quotes from Popper on this issue:
Sir Karl R. Popper is the philosopher of science who championed the idea of falsification.
Many Creationist books have printed this quote:
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme - a possible framework for testable theories."If you read the book, Popper is actually raising the famous "natural selection is a tautology" objection. Popper recanted two years later:Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography 1976, La Salle, IN: Open Court Press
"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. ...and he repeated the recantation three years after that:The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological."
Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.
"... 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 to say, 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."
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980
When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.
Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.
I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I 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. [emphasis added] -- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", _Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
I trust this addresses your question.
Sorry if I commited an italics mistake.
Creationoid editing:
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology.
Final creationoid version:
"The theory of natural selection is difficult to test and it is a tautology."
-- Karl Popper
You see, we evolutionists don't think the creationists have a dog in this hunt. Show us we're wrong. Give us some POSITIVE evidence for creationism. So far, y'all just nit pick around the edges of evolution, which does nothing for your position; even if evolution was suddenly proved untenable, it would not be replaced by creationism, because creationism has NOTHING going for it.
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Now you have no more excuses. And no, I man not going to post the whole Origins, or his complete works either. That is the definition of evolution from Darwin himself. That you and your friends object so strongly and call me names for doing so shows very well your total dishonesty and that you do not have a theory that is in any way defensible.
As I already pointed out, one of the characteristics of mammals was thought to be live birth (and as I also pointed out some think it still is). The only reason it has been taken out of the definition is that we found a LIVING BREATHING EXAMPLE of a mammal which did not give live birth. So just because there are certain not necessary bone formations which all present mammals share it does not mean that all mammals have had those traits all the time. This is particularly important if one was to try to trace the gradual evolution of mammals. These organic traits are the most important, that is why call them mammals and such traits cannot be found in the fossil record. The problems go both ways also, there are sharks that give live birth for example and we would not know that if we did not have LIVING EXAMPLES of such sharks. What this shows very well is the inability of the fossil record to: show us anything we do not already know about species, show us anything which may be unique about them, and to verify that evolution has occurred. Further, and even evolutionists admit this, similar bone structures do not mean similar functioning. The bat is a great example of this. What all this means is that you cannot prove evolution through fossils.
Dateline: Paris- FLASH!
French President Jaques Chirac has unexpectedly reversed French policy regarding the war with Iraq today, announcing that he intends to dispatch France's elite "Maginot" Attack Poodle division to the Persian Gulf. When asked how soon the dogs would be sent, Chirac replied: "As soon as I can get them to stop sniffing my crotch and humping my leg."
The feared "Prowler Poodles of Paris" have a reputation in military circles for being able to lick a man to death in under two weeks, and represent the single most significant advance to military technology by France since their introduction of the petard and the white flag some 500 years ago.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.....
'There is no morality or objective set of values,' he wrote, no doubt hoping to please the professoriate."
wstr ...
This is what Harvard preaches to its undergraduates, loudly and clearly. The Unabomber is but one example of someone who took their idea seriously. The inability of most college graduates and now high school graduates to hold on to moral absolutes is the cause of the decline of America. The finger of blame rests squarely with the Philosophy Depts in our country... they have been preaching this theory for decades. (( link )) --- The culture around us is the result.
9 posted on 03/23/2003 1:03 PM PST by The Westerner
Anyone who considers that live birth is characteristic of mammals is not worth consulting on the issue.
The only reason it has been taken out of the definition is that we found a LIVING BREATHING EXAMPLE of a mammal which did not give live birth.
Yes, some positive evidence turned up of egg-laying in a hitherto unknown subclass of living mammals. Which is not inconsistent with evolution. If evolution is true, then egg-laying had to be present up to some point in the lineage. If monotremes had not survived until the present day, and we couldn’t tell if they were egg-layers from their fossils, then we wouldn’t know if that particular group of mammals were egg-layers or live-breeders, that’s all. They would still be classed as a separate subclass based on their skeletons. Live birth would still be included in the definition of the two surviving groups of mammals, while it would be a necessity of evolutionary biology that up to some point in the past, mammals or their reptilian ancestors laid eggs.
So just because there are certain not necessary bone formations which all present mammals share it does not mean that all mammals have had those traits all the time.
No it doesn’t, but that’s not what the evidence tell us, is it? Unless you have some evidence that there have been mammals (or otherwise probable mammalian candidates) that didn’t possess these features?
This is particularly important if one was to try to trace the gradual evolution of mammals. These organic traits are the most important, that is why call them mammals and such traits cannot be found in the fossil record.
Again, mammary glands are no more characteristic of mammals than the jaw or the inner ear. The name “mammal” is subjective, otherwise “mammary glands” would be the only words contained in a definition of mammals.
The problems go both ways also, there are sharks that give live birth for example and we would not know that if we did not have LIVING EXAMPLES of such sharks. What this shows very well is the inability of the fossil record to: show us anything we do not already know about species, show us anything which may be unique about them, and to verify that evolution has occurred. Further, and even evolutionists admit this, similar bone structures do not mean similar functioning. The bat is a great example of this.
What do you mean by “even evolutionists admit this”, as if it was a grudging admission that would preferably remain hidden? Homology has been part of evolutionary theory since Darwin. That aside, I don’t know of any evidence that inner ear bones and lower jaws have had (or could have had) any other functions than those they have now. And do you really not think that T.rex, sauropods and the various sabre-toothed mammals had any unique features (discernible from the fossil record) not found today?
What all this means is that you cannot prove evolution through fossils.
Again, I’m not talking about evolution. I’m talking about whether a particular fossil can be classed as a mammal (or a shark or whatever). You have two choices in those cases. Either the evidence supports the inclusion of a fossil in those groups, or it doesn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.